Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — HOME DEPARTMENT

Motor Vehicles (Noise)

Mr. Iremonger: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many complaints have been received by the Metropolitan Police concerning excessive noise caused by the exhausts of various classes of motor vehicles; and how many prosecutions and how many convictions have ensued.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Renton): I regret that no record is available of the number of complaints received. In the first seven months of this year, there were 404 prosecutions and 385 convictions in the Metropolitan Police District for the offences of using a motor vehicle with defective silencing equipment or in such a way as to cause excessive noise.

Mr. Iremonger: Could my hon. and learned Friend tell the House what is the attitude of the police to complaints by citizens about exceptional noise, to what extent such complaints are required to be corroborated by witnesses, and how many witnesses are acceptable?

Mr. Renton: When a complaint is received, the Commissioner makes arrangements to have the matter followed up by having the section of road to which the complaint relates specially patrolled and then very often a prosecution follows. Corroboration is not generally necessary.

Probation Service

Mr. Iremonger: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the future of the probation service.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. R. A. Butler): All aspects of the probation service are under consideration by the Departmental Committee on the Probation Service which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and I recently appointed. I am sure that the Committee's recommendations will be of great value in planning the future of this important service.

Mr. Iremonger: Could my right hon. Friend give any indication to the House as to when he expects to receive the report and whether it will be received in time to enable him to take it into consideration when framing legislation which is foreshadowed in the Gracious Speech?

Mr. Butler: I am not quite sure about the coincidence of the date of the final report and legislation. I should have thought that legislation might be introduced before we receive the report, but I do not think it will be impossible to consider it during the passage of the legislation. It all depends on the speed with which the Committee performs its duties. I will draw my hon. Friend's Question to the Committee's attention.

Licensed Premises, Carlisle (Television Broadcast)

Dr. D. Johnson: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department by what authority the premises of the Arroyo Arms at Harraby, Carlisle, were used for an election news broadcast on the Northern Service of the British Broadcasting Corporation on Saturday, 26th September; if he is aware that the purport of this broadcast was to extol the virtues of State Management Scheme beer in an identical manner as was being done by one of the candidates at this election, thus creating the widespread misunderstanding that these public houses, though a State institution, were actively entering the political arena; and what action he proposes to take to pre vent such misunderstandings arising in the future.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Dennis Vosper): Permission was given for the B.B.C. to take shots of the Arroyo Arms for a film for a television news programme on the election campaign in Cumberland and North West England. This section of the film lasted about 20 seconds: it showed a close-up of the Arroyo Arms' sign and interiors of beer being drawn and people in the bar. The commentator gave a summary of the candidates references to State public houses as a local issue in the election. The B.B.C. assure me that there is no question of this news broadcast being intended in any other sense than that of news interest.

Dr. Johnson: While thanking my right hon. Friend for his very full reply, may I none the less ask him whether, in the forthcoming examination of the licensing system, he will assess the propriety of the State owning public houses as a monopoly in a single area, out of which misunderstandings of this rather paradoxical character arise?

Mr. Vosper: There is another Question on the Order Paper on this subject. I have a transcript of this broadcast. I do not think it was very harmful, but I will look at this aspect on future occasions.

Metropolitan Police (Recruitment)

Mr. Lipton: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department to what extent the Metropolitan Police Force is below establishment; and what action he will take to encourage recruitment.

Mr. Renton: The current establishment of the Metropolitan Police Force is 20,081, and the strength on 30th September, 1959, was 17,343. The Commissioner is taking all possible steps to encourage recruitment.

Mr. Lipton: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that much of the present crime wave would probably be nipped in the bud if there were more police on the beat, and that 3,000 fewer police than we should have is a serious state of affairs? In addition to repealing out-of-date laws which make their task more difficult, would not an improvement in the pay and conditions of service do something to fill up this deficit of 3,000 men in the Metropolitan Police Force?

Mr. Renton: It is clear that we need more Metropolitan police. The question of pay is a matter for the Police Council for Great Britain. The question of recruiting is one to which the Commissioner is giving constant attention by various means and by publicity, and I am glad to say that they are proving effective and that the strength of the Force is gradually increasing.

Summer Time

Mr. Cooper-Key: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that it would greatly assist holiday makers and seaside resorts if Summer Time could be extended throughout October; and whether he will make a statement on this matter.

Mr. John Hall: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received requesting that the period of British Summer Time should be extended; and whether he will make a statement.

Sir A. Hurd: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will appoint a committee to review the operation of Summer Time and the desirability of extending the period by a fortnight in October.

Mr. Vosper: Several suggestions have been made to the Government from various sources, including the tourist industry, that Summer Time should be extended. The National Farmers' Unions of England and Wales and of Scotland are, however, against it; and a permanent extension would require legislation. In these circumstances, further soundings of opinion seem desirable, and we propose to seek the views of a wide range of bodies concerned with industry, including the tourist industry, commerce, and agriculture.

Mr. Hall: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it would greatly help the tourist industry if Summer Time could start a little earlier so that it could take in Easter when Easter comes early in a particular year?

Mr. Vosper: I will note that point. The inquiry will be a very wide one and will take into account that possibility.

Captain Pilkington: Does my right hon. Friend realise that there is really


a great body of opinion in support of this idea, and will he at least try it as an experiment in the forthcoming year?

Mr. Vosper: I could not promise to do that. The inquiry is to be really comprehensive, and I should not wish to come to any decision until we have received its conclusions.

Sir A. Hurd: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that when the National Farmers' Unions of England and Wales looked at this matter last year there was a very even distribution of opinion, the Scottish N.F.U., I think, being against the extension of Summer Time? Will he keep in mind that public opinion is changing on the matter, and that this autumn, as he will probably find, the weight of public opinion will be in favour of extension by a fortnight?

Mr. Ronald Bell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that altering the clock has no effect on the weather and that it is really quite easy to get up an hour earlier if one wants to?

Detention Centres

Mr. Iremonger: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the progress made and anticipated in the provision of detention centres; and, in this connection, what consideration he has given to the suitability of four residential school camps in Surrey, Sussex and Oxfordshire recently advertised for sale by private treaty or later by public auction by order of the Receiver and Manager of the National Camps Corporation, Limited

Mr. R. A. Butler: Two additional centres—in Durham and Yorkshire—are now in course of construction. During the past year, the Prison Commissioners have submitted to local planning authorities proposals for the provision of five other centres, each of which has aroused local objection. A public inquiry has been found necessary in two cases and may well be necessary in others.
Hence, there may be some delay, which is the more to be regretted since the experience of the existing centres has shown that the fears on which opposition to their establishment was based have proved to be completely without foundation.
The four camps to which my hon. Friend refers were inspected by the Prison Commissioners some time ago but were found unsuitable for conversion to detention centres.

Mr. Iremonger: With regard to the first part of my right hon. Friend's Answer, has he any special steps in mind to prepare local public opinion for the advent of proposed detention centres, especially by letting local people see what the reaction has been to such centres in places like Goudhurst and Kidlington, where they have proved successful?

Mr. Butler: Yes, we have attempted to do that. We cannot and should not deprive people of their right to have an inquiry if they so desire. We examine how we can expedite this part of our procedure consistent with the public good and we provide as much information as possible.

Mr. S. Silverman: Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that detention centres are only part of our machinery for dealing with juvenile delinquency? Can he confirm that two-thirds of the approved schools are provided by voluntary bodies and not by the State and a great many of them are staffed by people with no teaching qualifications and no special training of any kind?

Mr. Butler: I should wish to answer a question on approved schools with rather more thought than I could give to it in answer to a supplementary question. There is at present an inquiry going on, the result of which may prove useful to us and the House generally in planning the future of approved schools. So let us give this matter some time and consider it thoroughly.

Mr. Deedes: In view of the importance of establishing more detention centres quickly, and in view of the very widespread public misunderstanding about what they in fact do, could the right hon. Gentleman take steps to give some reassuring indication to the public of what detention centres are doing and the work he expects of them?

Mr. Butler: My visit to Goudhurst in my hon. Friend's division convinced me that they have a salutary effect and that they also have a good effect on the boys' future. I will certainly take what steps I can to make their merits known.

Electoral Reform

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will take steps to set up an all-party committee on electoral reform having regard to changes in circumstances during the last twelve years and experiences at four General Elections, and to consider, among other things, votes for men and women from the age of 18 years.

Mr. W. Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to initiate all-party discussions with a view to introducing legislation to give all persons a vote at 18 years of age.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I am not at present convinced of the need to set up a committee on the lines proposed by my hon. Friend. I would remind my hon. Friend that the decision that the appropriate age for the franchise is 21 was taken by Parliament in 1948, and I should wish to have further evidence of general demand before making a change.

Mr. Nabarro: While not necessarily supporting any proposal to reduce the minimum age for voting, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that there is quite a large number of other electoral problems which have been thrown up by the last four General Elections, including, apart from what has happened to the former university franchise, the whole of the postal voting arrangements, which are not in such a state of good order as many of us would wish? Could he consider that aspect of the subject with these other matters?

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir. I think that it is the duty of the Home Secretary to consider all possible changes in electoral reform and then to consider the appropriate steps, usually through a Speaker's Conference, by which things can be put right. Of course, if hon. Members have any points they wish to draw to my attention, they are perfectly at liberty to do so.

Mr. Gordon Walker: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the present system is very unfairly biased in favour of the Conservatives, and that it is calculated that the Opposition need to gain a majority of half a million votes in order to achieve an equality of seats? Is this not something which really should be looked into?

Mr. Butler: It is not quite as simple as that. It is true there are certain majorities in certain districts which provide Members with a majority larger than that gained by other Members. It is very difficult, if we take the normal size of the constituency as approved by the Boundary Commission, to alter that situation very deeply. We certainly feel that whatever the system, the Conservatives will be returned.

Corporal Punishment

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has considered the official statistics concerning the incidence of crime, to which reference was made by the Lord Chief Justice on 22nd October; and whether, in framing his proposals for penal reform, he will give consideration to the reintroduction of judicial birching, as punishment for crimes of violence.

Mr. N. Pannell: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has considered the official statistics concerning the incidence of crime which the Lord Chief Justice put before the annual meeting of the Magistrates' Association in London on Thursday, 22nd October; and whether he will give consideration to the restoration of corporal punishment when framing his proposals for reform of the penal code.

Sir T. Moore: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has studied the official statistics regarding the incidence of crime adduced by the Lord Chief Justice at the annual meeting of the Magistrates' Association; and whether, as a result, he will introduce legislation to restore corporal punishment for crimes of violence.

Mr. Osborne: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he proposes to introduce legislation to enable corporal punishment to be imposed, in the light of the statistics quoted by the Lord Chief Justice before the Magistrates' Association; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Lagden: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, having regard to the official statistics concerning corporal punishment referred to recently by the Lord Chief Justice of England, whether he will consider


the formation of a committee to examine and report on the question of punishment of crimes of violence.

Mr. R. A. Butler: While I have naturally considered the Lord Chief Justice's remarks, I am basing myself on the plans for the positive treatment of young offenders which have been under consideration by my Advisory Council on the Treatment of Offenders, under the Chairmanship of Mr. Justice Barry, and are recommended in its recently published Report.

Mr. Nabarro: Has my right hon. Friend perceived that, in regard to crimes of violence, there is evidently complete unanimity of view between the present Lord Chief Justice, his predecessor, Lord Goddard, and myself, together with many of my distinguished hon. Friends on these benches, that a proper policy ought to be to "whack the thugs"? May we have an assurance from my right hon. Friend that, when his penal reform Measure is brought to the House, it will not be drafted in such a way as to preclude the addition of an appropriate Clause in the sense that I have indicated?

Mr. Butler: I fully understand the force of the questions I am answering today. I have said that I am basing the Bill on the Report of the Advisory Council to which I referred. That will be so. I will certainly consider what my hon. Friend says, because we are a free country and we are entitled to have our own views on these matters. I think that every aspect of the subject of young offenders should be considered by the House. But the basis from which I start has been made clear from this Box.

Mr. Royle: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, on this occasion, the Lord Chief Justice's statement was given in answer to a very casual question after he had made a long and considered speech, and does the right hon. Gentleman feel that the matter ought to be considered in that light in an expression of view on corporal punishment?

Mr. Butler: Yes, it was in answer to questions. Everybody is entitled to his own opinion in this country, and I am ready to take into account the position and opinion of the Lord Chief Justice. I notice, also, that he said that the cat

is brutal and makes martyrs of people. That, I think, is a very sensible observation. As regards the aspirations of my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster, I hope he will now have extra hopes since he agrees with the Lord Chief Justice and his predecessor.

Sir T. Moore: Is not my right hon. Friend sometimes rather fearful of being so much out of tune with public opinion on this matter, and certainly with the highest legal opinion, as has been pointed out? Is he not still more fearful when he realises that the greater part of his support on this question comes from the opposite benches?—"Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes".

Mr. Nabarro: What does that mean?

Mr. Butler: I hope my hon. Friend will translate that at a later date for the benefit of hon. Members opposite. I am not at all anxious, because this is really entirely a practical matter. No one objects to a parent or teacher, under proper conditions, using the cane on young people. We found from the Report of 1948, however, what very great difficulty there is in administering this punishment through courts. Let us have a discussion about it. I am not unduly prejudiced on the matter. No one wants to check the rise in crime more than I do.

Mr. N. Pannell: With respect, may I remind my right hon. Friend that I think the year was 1938, not 1948? May I ask my right hon. Friend whether the Advisory Council had the advantage of the opinion of the Lord Chief Justice before coming to its conclusions?

Mr. Nabarro: And mine.

Mr. Butler: I think it important that the Legislature should be perfectly free to make up its own mind on these matters. What obiter dicta are made by such distinguished persons as the Lord Chief Justice must be made according to their own tastes and judgment, but it must be for the Legislature to make up its mind on these issues.

Mr. M. Stewart: May I remind the hon. Member for Ayr (Sir T. Moore) that one of the members of the Cadogan Commission which demonstrated the futility of this form of punishment was a former Conservative Member of this House?

Sir T. Moore: That was the cat

Mr. Osborne: Does my right hon. Friend think it fair to take part of the Lord Chief Justice's judgment as supporting his opinion that the cat is brutalising and to ignore his other suggestions? Has my right hon. Friend no confidence in the Lord Chief Justice's general remarks? Also, will he bear in mind that at least the vast majority of his own supporters would like him to take some action in this way?

Mr. Butler: I fully understand the pressure on this matter, but I am sure my hon. Friends realise that we cannot solve crime by a single method such as this. The more we openly discuss the matter on the occasion of a Bill dealing with young offenders the better. I am not at all frightened of discussing the matter, but let us discus it on its merits.

Mr. Paget: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether the Lord Chief Justice and indeed members of the judiciary have any training at all in penology? Also is he not aware that, as a matter of historical fact, judicial advice on penal reform has almost invariably turned out to be wrong?

Mr. Butler: I particularly do not want to criticise the Lord Chief Justice in the liberty of expression which undoubtedly he should enjoy, but I equally say that the Legislature is entitled to make up its own mind and to take into account what it hears. The ultimate responsibility for making the law must lie with the Legislature.

Mr. S. Silverman: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise, as a result of the discussion we have had in Question and Answer this afternoon, how inadvisable it is for any occupant of the judicial bench, particularly the Lord Chief Justice, to intervene in public on a matter which is in serious political controversy, even though it is not among the public? Has it not always been the tradition of our judiciary that it should keep out of all questions which fall to be decided by the Legislature and which involve political controversy? Is it not most important that that tradition should be preserved?

Mr. Butler: As an hon. Member opposite has indicated, on this particular occasion the Lord Chief Justice was talking to the magistrates, and he had

a very respectable precedent, in that his predecessor used to talk to the magistrates with great effect. We must draw a line between comments by the judiciary on matters essentially within the realm of the Executive, of which there have been one or two cases recently which I personally resent, but we must also allow a certain liberty of expression on the borderline which lies between the Legislature and the Executive.

Mr. Lagden: Does not my right hon. Friend realise that the Lord Chief Justice in this instance is very much in tune with public opinion, and far more in tune with public opinion than some legal nonentities to whom we have to listen in this House?

Mr. Butler: Far be it from me to intervene in such a legal struggle as my hon. Friend has introduced.

Mr. E. Johnson: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will state the number of crimes of violence, known to the police, for which corporal punishment could be imposed prior to the passing of the Criminal Justice Act, 1948, committed in the years 1948, 1957, 1958, and to last convenient date in 1959.

Mr. R. A. Butler: As the answer is long and includes a number of figures, I shall, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Johnson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I asked for only four figures, not a large number, and that I should like to have them now, if I may?

Mr. Butler: I think we have to consider the convenience of the House. My hon. Friend will find that this statement is a long one. It analyses the figures, and it shows I am not entirely satisfied with the way the definition of offences of robbery, etc., are defined throughout the country. As it is rather complicated, and as I can tell the House that the figures do not show an improvement—I will say that at this Box—I would rather that my hon. Friend read them and then, perhaps, came back to me again.

Following is the answer:

The only important crime of violence for which corporal punishment could be imposed before the Criminal Justice Act came into


force in 1949 was robbery with violence under Section 23 (1) of the Larceny Act, 1916. The figures for which my hon. Friend asks are:


1948
978


1957
921


1958
1,402


1959 (provisional figures for nine months)
1,217

The analysis of these figures has disclosed that the method of distinguishing robbery with violence from other offences of robbery under subsections (2) and (3) of Section 23 of the Larceny Act is not uniform throughout the country. For this reason I propose in future to quote the figures covering all offences of robbery, the great majority of which are in fact offences of robbery with violence. On this basis the figures are respectively 1,101, 1,194, 1,692, and 1,412 and 1957, not 1958, was the first year in which the figure for 1948 was exceeded.

State-owned Public Houses, Carlisle

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will introduce legislation to denationalise the State-owned public houses in Carlisle.

Mr. Vosper: No such legislation is at present in contemplation.

Mr. Nabarro: If I were to bring in a Bill to denationalise public houses in Carlisle, could my right hon. Friend say what would be the official attitude of Her Majesty's Government to it? Also, would he have some regard to the fact that it should be no part of the policy or purposes of the Conservative Party to own licensed premises or to promote the sale of a larger quantity of beer?

Mr. Vosper: My right hon. Friend has a reasonably open mind on this subject. No doubt he will take note of what my hon. Friend says, either in a Bill or by way of supplementary question.

Firearms (Accidents)

Sir L. Heald: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware of the existence of widespread public concern at the number of serious accidents arising out of the possession and use of firearms by juveniles; and whether he will take steps, as a matter of urgency, to remedy the present situation, in which a person of any age is entitled as of right, to obtain a 10s. licence authorising him or her to carry and use a shotgun of any bore, and to purchase and retain an unlimited supply of ammunition for use therein.

Mr. Janner: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that many accidents, including a recent fatal accident in Leicester, have occurred owing to the uncontrolled sale of shotguns and similar weapons, even to young persons; and what he proposes to do to control the indiscriminate sale of these weapons.

Mr. Renton: My right hon. Friend is aware that there is some public concern about accidents arising out of the misuse of shotguns and air weapons by young persons, and he is considering whether any change in the law is needed. My right hon. Friend has no evidence that there is any widespread failure to observe the existing law prohibiting the sale or hire of a firearm of any kind, including a shotgun or air weapon, to a person under the age of 17.

Sir L. Heald: I thank my hon. and learned Friend for that Answer. May I ask two supplementary questions? First, is he aware that I hold in my hand a 10s. gun licence which was issued yesterday in the ordinary course of business by the post office to my granddaughter aged three? Secondly, is he aware that I also have here a collection of Press cuttings which show that during the last five months there have been fourteen fatal accidents arising out of the possession or use of shotguns by juveniles? Does he not think that his Department is too complacent about this matter?

Mr. Renton: In answer to the first part of my right hon. and learned Friend's supplementary question, I understand from a letter which he sent me that he himself bought this firearm certificate for his grandchild aged three. I must remind him that the child's parents are responsible for seeing that the child uses the gun with due regard to safety and that it is not misused. In answer to the other matter which my right hon. and learned Friend raised, we are grateful for his close personal interest in the general question, and when considering the matter further we shall bear in mind what he has said.

Mr. Janner: Is the hon. and learned Member aware that in Leicester recently a boy of fourteen bought one of these guns and accidently killed another boy


of fourteen? Is he also aware that for a very considerable time many of us in this House have been anxious to ensure that there is control of these weapons? Is it not obviously clear that some kind of restriction should be imposed? Will he consider introducing a short amendment to the Bill which I myself introduced in the House with regard to another dangerous weapon? This would very easily deal with the situation.

Mr. Renton: There is already a measure of control under the Firearms Act, and that is control over the sale or hire of these weapons. Parents who place these weapons in the hands of their children are responsible for any mishaps which may occur.
As to the question of amendment of the law, I think it is inappropriate at Question Time to consider comments of the kind which the hon. Gentleman has made, but we will certainly consider most carefully what he has said.

Mr. Janner: In view of the unsatisfactory reply and the urgency of the matter, I beg to give notice that I shall endeavour to raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

Electoral Registration

Mr. P. Williams: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will introduce amending legislation to enable colonial civil servants and others serving overseas to appear on the Register of Electors and to have the opportunity of voting at Parliamentary elections.

Mr. Vosper: No, Sir. The accepted principle is that the franchise is based on residence in the United Kingdom. The law allows some departure from the strict application of this principle in the case of members of the Forces and United Kingdom Crown servants while serving abroad; but it would be hard to justify any further exception.

Mr. Williams: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his Answer is thoroughly unsatisfactory and that considerable numbers of people who are serving their country in Colonial Territories overseas and a considerable number of people who are serving on business, and

their wives, are completely incapable of exercising their democratic privilege of using their vote at Parliamentary elections? If my right hon. Friend is not willing to give any more helpful undertaking, we will have to seek some other way of raising the matter later.

Mr. Vosper: My hon. Friend is quite right. This would extend to a large category of people far beyond those referred to in his Question. It would create a new army of voters from people not normally resident in this country.

Mr. Williams: In view of the nature of the reply and the importance of this matter, I give notice that I will try to raise it on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

Mr. Chetwynd: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will consider introducing amending legislation to provide for the compilation of the Election Register twice yearly.

Mr. Vosper: No, Sir.

Mr. Chetwynd: Will the right hon. Gentleman say why not, in view of the fact that the last election was fought on a register almost twelve months out-of-date, that during that time there had been considerable movements of population, both within constituencies and from one constituency to another, and that a good many people were denied their vote at the election? Surely, the cost involved is trivial compared with the full democratic rights of people to have a vote.

Mr. Vosper: The cost involved is estimated at £2 million, a considerable sum. In the new form of register, there is provision for young people who reach the age of 21 after the register is compiled to vote, and, of course, postal voting is available for those who move into a new area. On my present advice, I do not feel that a twice-yearly register would be a feasible proposition.

Mr. Gordon Walker: It was so long our practice to have the twice-yearly register. It was changed for reasons of economy. It is much better to have a live register than to rely on postal votes and all these other things which go wrong and are difficult to organise. Now that there is not the same need for economy which gave rise to the original decision


to cut it down to once a year, would it not be sensible to return to the old, original practice?

Mr. Vosper: The right hon. Gentleman is quite correct. That was stopped in 1949. I will note what he has to say, but I am not quite certain that the public would relish the idea of a twice-yearly register, which would inconvenience them in many respects.

Hon. Members: How?

Mr. Bevan: Would the right hon. Gentleman suggest to his right hon. Friend next to him that they should now consult the political parties in the country to find out what complaints they have about the way in which the register has been compiled, because is it not particularly infuriating for citizens to find when an election occurs that they are not on the register at all? Should not inquiries be made not only about the twice a year but to see that when it is done it is done properly?

Mr. Vosper: I will certainly discuss with my right hon. Friend this and the related problems, which are very much in our minds at the moment.

Mr. E. Johnson: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he has taken to explain the need for electors to check electoral registers and to the facilities open to them to claim to be included should they find they have, in the first instance, been omitted.

Mr. Vosper: Besides local publicity arranged by electoral registration officers, my right hon. Friend is arranging for the issue of suitable material about the electors' lists for the assistance of the Press and the broadcasting authorities. There will also be a postmark slogan this year calling attention to the lists.

Mr. Johnson: When will that appear? We are getting near the time.

Mr. Vosper: The list will be available from 28th November to 16th December for checking, and publicity material on postmarks will be used at the same time.

Mr. Gaitskell: The right hon. Gentleman mentioned that he will consult his right hon. Friend about the possibility of a twice-yearly register. This seems

to me—perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will confirm this—something which should, perhaps, be discussed between the parties, since it concerns us all.

Mr. Butler: Yes.

Mr. Harold Davies: Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that the interest on both sides of the House shows that both the major parties—indeed, all of us—feel some dissatisfaction with the electoral system? Will the Government look into it, and also get uniformity in practice among returning officers, of whom some will give percentages of the total vote—that is all we ask—at the polling booths while others will not? I think that information should be available to all the political parties. Will the Government give instructions that this should be given to the party agents?

Mr. Vosper: I note what the hon. Gentleman says.

Suicide (Law)

Mr. K. Robinson: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce, during the present Session, legislation to amend the law relating to suicide and attempted suicide.

Mr. R. A. Butler: As the hon. Member knows, I have stated that I understand his point of view on this matter. There are, however, certain points concerning the consequential provisions which would be necessary if the offences of suicide and attempted suicide were abolished which I have thought it desirable to refer to the Criminal Law Revision Committee for its early advice.

Mr. Robinson: While thanking the Home Secretary for that fairly promising reply, may I ask whether he has seen the report of the Committee set up by the Archbishop of Canterbury, which takes broadly the view which I have been pressing upon him for the last 18 months? Does the right hon. Gentleman not now agree that reform of the law in this sense would be considerably less controversial than he thought in the initial stages?

Mr. Butler: I have seen that statement and I think that there is a general growth of public opinion in the direction in which the hon. Member desires. We should,


however, get the views of the Criminal Law Revision Committee before taking the matter further.

London Clubs

Mr. Lipton: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many clubs permitted to sell alcoholic drinks are now registered in the London area; and what was the corresponding figure last year.

Mr. Vosper: On 30th September, 1959, 3,599 clubs were registered in the Metropolitan Police District; the corresponding figure for 1958 was 3,392. At the end of October, 1959, 126 clubs were registered in the City of London; the corresponding figure for 1958 was 118.

Mr. Lipton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the growing number of unsavoury and insanitary clubs, especially in quiet residential areas, is causing concern to law-abiding citizens who have the misfortune to live nearby? Will he indicate his support of the effort that is being made by the London County Council to deal with what is a quite serious problem in the London area?

Mr. Vosper: My right hon. Friend has already said that it is intended to introduce a Bill on licensing laws within this Parliament. I cannot comment on the London County Council Bill until I see it.

Police Forces (Strength and Establishment)

Mr. Ede: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department the present establishment of the police forces in England and Wales; and the strength of the forces on the last convenient date.

Mr. R. A. Butler: The total establishment of the police forces in England and Wales is 78,580; and on 30th September, 1959. the total strength was 72,377.

Postal and Proxy Voting

Mr. Fell: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will amend the Representation of the People Act to allow postal votes to all those normally entitled to a vote, who are on holiday at the time of a Parliamentary election.

Mr. Russell: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will amend the Representation of the People Act so as to enable electors who know they will be on holiday on the day of a Parliamentary election to appoint a proxy to vote for them.

Mr. Vosper: No, Sir. I think we should find that this would involve allowing anyone who wished to vote by post or proxy to do so. Such an extension of absent voting would, I think, be open to objection.

Mr. Fell: This question of votes is not very satisfactory. Surely, our aim must be to make it easy for people who are on the electoral register to cast their vote. Can we not have another look at these difficulties of which we have been told? We have sufficient time now to do it and we have brilliant Ministers. Can we not look at this question again and see whether we cannot come to a more satisfactory conclusion, because a lot of the electors are angry about this, particularly when an election is sprung on them quickly?

Mr. Vosper: It is a long-standing principle that electors should vote in person except where circumstances more or less outside their control prevent it. What my hon. Friend suggests would be a far-reaching and dangerous proposal—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—but my right hon. Friend has, of course, said that he is always prepared to look at the electoral law again.

Mr. John Hall: If my right hon. Friend is not prepared to make a change such as has been suggested, will the Government in future give sufficient advance notice of forthcoming General Elections to enable people to make their holiday arrangements?

Mr. Mawby: Concerning the recent election, is my right hon. Friend aware that there are many people, particularly in the resort areas, who normally cannot take their holidays until later in the year? Either they were denied a holiday this year because they wished to give their vote for whichever party they supported or they had to travel many hundred miles back to their constituency on a certain day to register their votes. Will not my right hon. Friend consider particularly the resort areas, where, for


reasons of their livelihood, people must take their holidays at a different time of the year?

Mr. Vosper: From my own experience, I am aware of the difficulties expressed by my hon. Friend. At the same time, the difficulties in defining "holiday" are very real. If my hon. Friend thinks about it, he will, I think, agree that it would be difficult to find a solution.

Mr. Bevan: Does not a much more important grievance consist in the fact that in many instances the electoral register is compiled so incompetently that large numbers of people who ought to be included on it are not?

Mr. Vosper: There is another Question on the Order Paper on that matter.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Biggs-Davison.

Mr. Nabarro: It would not have made enough difference to give the party opposite a majority.

Mr. Speaker: Order. There must not be so much noise that I cannot hear the question and the hon. Member cannot hear the answer.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: My right hon. Friend has mentioned the long-standing principle that people should, if possible, vote in person. Will he take into account that since that long-standing principle has been established, many more people are having holidays, thank goodness, and much longer holidays at that?

Coloured People, Notting Hill (Housing)

Mr. Fisher: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what report he has received from the Metropolitan Police with regard to housing exploitation of, and threats against, coloured people living in the Notting Hill area of London; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. R. A. Butler: The Commissioner of Police has investigated allegations of intimidation and will continue to give attention to this matter. It would not be in the public interest for me to say more.

Mr. Fisher: I appreciate that, but can my right hon. Friend indicate what thought has been given not only to the elimination of housing exploitation, but

also, perhaps more constructively, to the provision of alternative sources of housing for coloured people, such as, for instance, through special housing associations?

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir. My hon. Friend came and discussed some of these matters with some of his hon. Friends the other day and I sent him an interim reply. I shall be glad to give him a further report on the progress we are trying to make in improving housing with the aid of local authorities in the area.

Mr. J. Eden: When considering this question, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that not all the exploitation and threats are necessarily in one direction?

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Gordon Walker: Will the Home Secretary not only tell his hon. Friend, whose efforts in this behalf are widely supported, but also inform all of us about his conclusions on this matter?

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir. We might find an opportunity to be able to do so.

Street Offences Act

Mr. Fitch: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many women have been sentenced to terms of imprisonment under the Street Offences Act.

Mr. Vosper: Between 16th August, 1959, when the Street Offences Act came into operation, and 21st October, 33 women were sentenced to terms of imprisonment on conviction of offences under the Act. In addition, 53 women served terms of imprisonment in default of payment of a fine.

Mr. Fitch: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that since the Act began to operate the call-girl racket has increased? Has his attention been drawn to a booklet entitled "Ladies Directory", which, I understand, has been referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions?

Mr. Vosper: I will take note of what the hon. Member has said. The purpose of the Act, however, which is to drive the women off the streets, has, I think the hon. Member will agree, been remarkably successful.

Mr. N. Tomczuk

Dr. A. Thompson: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will reconsider his refusal to grant naturalisation to Mr. N. Tomczuk, 10 Braemont, Cowdenbeath, in view of the support given to his application by prominent local people well acquainted with his character and qualifications.

Mr. Renton: No, Sir. Mr. Tomczuk was not able to fulfil the statutory requirement of a sufficient knowledge of English.

Remanded Person (Death)

Mr. C. Royle: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been called to the suicide of a young man whilst on remand in prison; and what steps he proposes to take to ensure that a repetition of such a case shall be avoided.

Mr. Vosper: Yes, Sir, and I should like to take this opportunity of expressing my deep sympathy with the boy's family. The boy had been for six days in a room in Durham prison hospital because of an earlier attack of hysteria. He appeared to have completely recovered and, on the morning of his death, had asked to be discharged from the hospital. He ate well when the midday meal was served just before noon. He was found to be dead during a routine check at 12.35 p.m. My right hon. Friend is satisfied that no other steps could have been taken to prevent the suicide.

Mr. Royle: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider two questions; the possibility of giving some more guidance to magistrates, and even judges, with regard to the general question of bail; also, will the Home Office go into the question of the great need for remand centres, which would save young people from being sent to prison on remand?

Mr. Vosper: In reply to the first part of his supplementary question, the hon. Gentleman has great knowledge of these matters, but I think it would be difficult to do as he suggests. Of course, I will consider it. On the second point, that is a matter which is to be discussed in this House later today, but my right hon. Friend does agree about the great need for remand centres.

Dame Irene Ward: Would it be possible at this stage for my right hon. Friend to confirm on this matter of bail that an application was made to the judge in chambers and that the judge in chambers supported the magistrate? If he could confirm that, then I would ask my right hon. Friend whether he agrees that it is only fair that that should be put on the record so that the public may be informed of the present situation.

Mr. Vosper: My advice is that the application for bail was not made to the magistrate but to the judge in chambers, who refused it.

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: Did not the observations of Mr. Justice Elwes in this case support the recommendation of the Wolfenden Committee that in cases of this kind proceedings should not be taken except by the Director of the Public Prosecutions or with the consent of the Attorney-General?

Mr. Vosper: It is a rather complicated matter on which to comment at this stage, but I think that in this particular case it would be an exception to the Wolfenden recommendations.

Garratt v. Eastmond

Mr. G. Jeger: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what expense to public funds was involved in the damages and cost awarded to Mr. Gerald Garratt against the Metropolitan Police.

Mr. Lipton: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what amount has been paid out of public funds in respect of damages and costs arising from the case of Garratt v. Eastmond.

Mr. R. A. Butler: No damages were awarded by the court to the plaintiff in this case. A sum of £300 was paid into court on behalf of the defendant without admission of liability. The plaintiff, with the consent of the court, took the sum out in satisfaction of his claim. The bill of costs has not yet been received.

Mr. Jeger: Is this settlement at the expense of the policeman concerned against whom the action was taken, or does that amount come out of public funds, that is, at the expense of the taxpayer and ratepayer?

Mr. Butler: The latter represents the situation.

Mr. Lipton: Will we be informed in due course how much has had to be paid by way of costs out of public funds?

Mr. Butler: Yes, if the House wishes the information, the best way would be to put down a Question.

Mr. G. Jeger: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what disciplinary action is proposed by the Metropolitan Police arising out of the High Court case of Garratt v. Eastmond;
(2) to what department of the Metropolitan Police Police Constable Eastmond has been assigned; and to what extent this assignment brings him into contact with the public whilst on duty.

Mr. R. A. Butler: The Commissioner of Police, who is the disciplinary authority, informs me that he has decided that no disciplinary proceedings should be instituted. It is not his practice to disclose the disposition of the officers of his force.

Mr. Jeger: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware of the fact that numbers of newspapers have carried reports of previous cases in which this policeman has had to be reprimanded for his attitude towards the public? Is not this one of the reasons which is bringing the police into disrepute—regrettably—with the public, and ought not the Home Secretary to be prepared to look into this man's record with a view to revising his views?

Mr. Butler: As anybody who has served on a police authority of any sort knows—I am the police authority for the Metropolis—there are limits to which I can go. This is a matter which falls essentially within the power of the Commissioner. As he has decided this, I will support him.

Mr. Paget: Does it not seem a little odd that upon the one hand the Crown is advised to pay damages for a civil wrong alleged against one of its servants and on the other hand the advice is that the servant has not done anything wrong?

Mr. Butler: The hon. and learned Gentleman has the great power of bringing matters together in one sentence, but it is not quite as simple as that. There

would not be Questions in this House if there were not a certain amount of disquiet about this case, with which I sympathise.

Mr. S. Silverman: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that we get a really extraordinary situation if, in a police force for which he has personal responsibility to this House, an act takes place by an individual member of the force which justifies the police authority in paying substantial damages to a citizen and yet we have no inquiry at all, no disciplinary action against the man who must, on the result of the case, have acted in a way which justified the award of some damages?

Mr. Butler: The payment was made into court without admission of liability. That is, of course, the technical thing that happens on these occasions. I have great experience of the wisdom of the Commissioner in these matters. The matter has been referred to him. He has taken this decision. As I have said, I support him in the decision.

Mr. Gordon Walker: Would the right hon. Gentleman not realise that there is very great disquiet about this matter? A lot is known about this case and similar cases in connection with this man The right hon Gentleman has, after all, responsibility to the House in this field. Does he not agree with the recent article in The Times that this is more than a simple case before the courts that it has a very wide public importance because it concerns the action of a police constable in his official capacity and. secondly, because the money was paid out of public funds? Therefore for two reasons it is a matter of great public importance for which the right hon. Gentleman is responsible to the House.

Mr. Butler: I did not deny that I was responsible to the House. I said that I accepted the responsibility in the matter. I said that Questions would not have been put down if there had not been disquiet, which I fully understand, but I am afraid that I cannot carry the matter any further.

Mr. Gaitskell: Surely that is not very satisfactory. Why has the right hon. Gentleman reached this decision? I understand that there is a great deal of evidence that this officer has not behaved


at all well on previous occasions, and it is very surprising that no action whatever has been taken about it. Can the right hon. Gentleman explain that?

Mr. Butler: It is, I think, a matter for discretion. As Secretary of State I am responsible for the Metropolitan Police Force and for the Commissioner. I have confidence in the judgment of the Commissioner. There is a great variety of facts in the case. The Commissioner has been into them. I have given all the relevant facts that I know to the House, and I am afraid that I must accept responsibility in the matter.

Mr. Jeger: In view of the totally unsatisfactory nature of the replies from the Home Secretary, I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment as early as possible.

Immigration Control

Mr. N. Pannell: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action has been taken regarding the 37 Indians who recently entered this country without valid passports.

Mr. Renton: As a result of inquiries into the identity and nationality of these people, made with the help of representatives of the Office of the High Commissioner for India, it was established that one was a citizen of India and one a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies: these two were released from custody. It was not possible for the Office of the High Commissioner, on the information available, to regard the others as citizens of India; they were therefore required to leave the country under the Aliens Order, and did so on Tuesday.

Mr. Pannell: Is the implication of that reply that in future proof of Commonwealth citizenship will in itself justify immigration without the need for a valid passport? If that is so, will not that vitiate all the measures taken by the Indian Government to limit migration from India to Great Britain?

Mr. Renton: Under the present law, Commonwealth citizenship certainly enables a person to come to this country, but he has to prove that citizenship by producing a valid passport or other valid document. In this case, like several re-

cent cases of batches coming from India, the trouble was that a number of people tried to avoid the control which the Indian Government have themselves established.

Mr. Osborne: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will now make a statement as promised some months ago regarding his negotiations with the other Commonwealth Governments for similar restriction and control of immigration into the United Kingdom as applies in nearly every other part of the Commonwealth; and if he will introduce legislation which requires all immigrants to have a certificate of good health, a job to come to, a home to live in, and adequate financial resources.

Mr. R. A. Butler: The consultations with other Commonwealth Governments related only to the question of deportation. They are nearly complete, but I am not yet in a position to make a statement. Her Majesty's Government have no proposals to make at present for a general control of immigration from the Commonwealth.

Mr. Osborne: Does my right hon. Friend not think that the four conditions mentioned in my Question are reasonable? Does he not think that the people in this country are entitled to have safeguards against immigration, just as the people of the Commonwealth are entitled to have safeguards in relation to their countries? Why should not British people have the same right to safeguard the position as people in the Colonies demand for themselves?

Mr. Butler: The Mother Country has always had a special attitude towards immigration and, up to now, we have never had power of deportation. I have stated publicly that there is something to be said for power of deportation, but our consultations reveal that there is not unanimity on the matter and, therefore, it is a matter on which further consultation is necessary.

Mr. N. Pannell: Is it not a fact that two immigrants from the Commonwealth have recently been admitted to this country without a valid passport? Is it the intention of the Department to continue this practice in connection with other illegal immigrants?

Mr. Butler: I should want details of the case to which my hon. Friend refers.

Mr. Osborne: Since my right hon. Friend told me months ago that he was considering this problem, is it not time that something was done, especially in view of the fact that he has said that there is something to be said for it? Why should we not protect our people?

Mr. Butler: I have stated my personal view, which I did a year ago, and therefore I have beaten my hon. Friend by six months. I have caused inquiries to be made. We are dealing with other Governments within the Commonwealth family. Replies from one or two of the territories most directly concerned are still awaited, and not all the replies received so far are in favour of the proposal. Therefore, I am obliged to take this matter more slowly than perhaps I might have wished.

Private Interests (Political Propaganda)

Mr. Collick: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he proposes to take to prevent private business interests spending large sums of money on political propaganda immediately preceding a General election, to expend enormous sums of of Parliament when it imposed limitations on a candidate's expenses at such elections.

Mr. Vosper: My right hon. Friend has no reason to think that the law on this subject is inadequate or is not effectively enforced.

Mr. Collick: Is it not the case that when Parliament imposed a maximum limitation on the expenses of Parliamentary candidates it was clearly intended that there should be fairness between candidates, and that personal wealth should not have undue advantage? Surely it vitiates the whole of that principle if wealthy vested interests are allowed, immediately preceding the Election, to expend enormous sums of money to create a climate of opinion favourable to the Government party and unfavourable to the main Opposition party? Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that unless something is done about this by the Government themselves somebody else will certainly have to do something about it?

Mr. Vosper: I am sure the hon. Member realises that this is covered by the Representation of the People Act, 1949, and that Section 159 provides for information to be given to the Director of Public Prosecutions. I would draw his attention to that Section.

Mr. McAdden: Would my right hon. Friend have a look at this question most carefully and bear in mind the considerable expenditure on the part of the co-operative societies and especially that part which was spent on propaganda during the election period in plastering all their windows with the words, "All Prices Reduced", thus contributing to Conservative victory?

Mr. Bevan: Is it not rather extra ordinary that a Question of this importance should not have been answered by the Home Secretary? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we on this side of the House would like to take all these matters into consideration, including the co-operative societies? Is the right hon. Gentleman not further aware that the authority of the House will be reduced in the minds of citizens if it is widely felt that the election has been rigged—

Mr. Osborne: Take your beating like a man.

Mr. Bevan: Rigged by means of vast expenditure of money in the possession of the wealthier members of the community? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Hon. Members will permit me to put my supplementary question. Is it not a fact that if we cannot retain the authority of the House, then, of course, people will try to redress their wrongs in other ways?

Hon. Members: Threats.

Mr. Vosper: The right hon. Gentleman will have noticed that the protests against the electoral law have come equally from both sides of the House.

Mr. Bevan: Nonsense.

Mr. Vosper: That, indeed, is the case. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will, of course, accept the suggestion that the whole question should be looked at.

Mr. Grimond: Will the Home Secretary bear in mind that, whatever


objections are taken to the electoral matter by the major parties, they are nothing to the objections taken by the smaller parties?

Mr. Fernyhough: Since the right hon. Gentleman says that there is nothing wrong in private employers indulging in propaganda to suit the Tory Party, would he say the same if the boards of the nationalised industries decided to defend themselves in the same manner?

Mr. Collick: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Gaitskell: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will announce the business for next week?

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. R. A. Butler): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY, 9TH NOVEMBER, and TUESDAY, 10TH NOVEMBER—Second Reading of the Local Employment Bill and Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution.
WEDNESDAY, 11TH NOVEMBER—Committee and remaining stages of the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill; the Marshall Scholarships Bill; and the Foreign Service Bill.
Consideration of Motion to approve the Import Duties (General) (Various Goods) Order.
THURSDAY, 12TH NOVEMBER—Consideration of the Draft Army Act, 1955 (Continuation) Order; the Draft Air Force Act, 1955 (Continuation) Order; and of the Motions relating to the Ministry of National Service (Dissolution) Order and the Service Departments Supply (No. 2) Order.
FRIDAY, 13TH NOVEMBER—Second Reading of the Post Office and Telegraph [Money] Bill.

Mr. Gaitskell: In view of the importance of the Local Employment Bill, which replaces all the previous legislation on this subject and is of much

concern to a large number of hon. Members on both sides of the House, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the Government are prepared to take the Committee stage of the Bill on the Floor of the House?

Mr. Butler: I will note what the right hon. Gentleman has said and will give an answer on this point as soon as possible.

Mr. C. Pannell: Will the Leader of the House consider allotting an early day not only to a reconsideration of the Report of the Select Committee on Procedure but to bringing up again the report of the Stokes Committee on Accommodation? Most new Members of the House are appalled, when they first come here, by the paucity of accommodation. Does he not think, therefore, that very soon in this Parliament the whole matter of accommodation, as well as of procedure, should be reviewed?

Mr. Butler: It depends on the time available, but it would be useful to obtain the views of right hon. and hon. Members on procedure before the time comes for the laying of any Motion after Christmas. The question of accommodation has been puzzling us for some time and we have had various devices in mind. As the hon. Gentleman so well knows, since he has done so much about it himself, it is largely a question of building. Nevertheless, if any hon. Member has any ideas to put forward they will be well worth considering.

Mr. W. Yates: Has my right hon. Friend had an opportunity to read the Motion on the Order Paper concerning trade union law and practice?

[That this House, having regard to the original conception of the trades unions as bodies with the proper purpose of providing negotiating machinery between employers and employees, but recognising that their organisation is now used by a handful of irresponsible persons in such a manner as can paralyse any section of industry, however vital to the national economy, urges Her Majesty's Government to recommend the setting up of a Royal Commission forthwith to inquire into the law relating to the legitimate activities of trades unions, with a view to preventing these being abused by unofficial strikes, demarcation disputes and


picketing and other customs leading to intimidation and victimisation of workers.]

I have put down an Amendment to that Motion.

[Line 1, leave out from "House" to end and add "urges Her Majesty's Government to recommend the appointment of a Royal Commission to examine trade union law, practice and customs and make recommendations in the public interest.]

Will my right hon. Friend consider giving time for a debate on this subject, not in any party atmosphere, one side or the other, but in the interests of industry as a whole?

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir. I have noted the Motion to which my hon. Friend refers. At the moment, I cannot give any undertaking, as there are many other subjects which have to be discussed before Christmas, but I will certainly note his request.

Mr. Gaitskell: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the Government would be repared to take, on Thursday, the Service Departments Supply (No. 2) Order with the other Orders relating to the transfer of functions from the former Ministry of Supply to the various Defence Departments, so that we can have a debate on them all together? That would be on another day.

Mr. Butler: I will certainly look into the right hon. Gentleman's request.

Mr. Gaitskell: May I also ask whether the right hon. Gentleman will find time for a debate on the Radcliffe Report, as foreshadowed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his recent speech, and also give a day for a debate on traffic problems in large cities?

Mr. Butler: I can give a positive answer on the first point, the Radcliffe Report. It is our wish to have a debate on this subject before too long and perhaps we can find a convenient day.
I will note, for the purposes of trying to find time, the right hon. Gentleman's request for a debate on the second matter.

Mr. Grimond: Reverting to the question asked by the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell), may I ask the Home Secretary to find time not only for a debate on the topics he mentioned,

but on the suggestions that have been made in this Parliament, for instance, on televising the proceedings of Parliament, on private Members' time and on Questions about the nationalised industries? Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that it would be useful to have a debate on all those matters, and have it fairly soon?

Mr. Butler: I am not quite sure whether we could debate them all on the same day. Questions about the nationalised industries have perplexed us since the industries were nationalised. We might be able to regard the question of televising as one of procedure, but I think that we should divide those subjects to give a chance for hon. Members to express their views.

Mr. Mellish: Apropos of what the Leader of the Liberal Party has said about the nationalised industries, this is a matter of good will on the part of the Government, as I understand it. Whether the Government allow Ministers to accept Questions, whether it be on a day-to-day basis or not, is a matter for the Government to decide. Many of us on this side of the House, as well as hon. Gentlemen opposite, feel that the time has come when Ministers should accept full responsibility in Parliament for these Questions, and now.

Mr. Butler: In this House we have to pay regard to the recent Report of our own Select Committee on the Nationalised Industries. We drew attention to the difficulty of unbridled Questions about the nationalised industries and also to some of the other difficulties, and we indicated the manner in which Questions might conveniently be asked. We must pay attention to the Report of our own Select Committee in deciding procedure on this matter.

Mr. Ridsdale: Would my right hon. Friend agree that one of the best ways of solving the problem of the nationalised industries is to have more debates on them in this House, particularly with reference to road and rail transport?

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir. It is well known that we have a practice of setting aside certain days for debates on the nationalised industries, and we have that in mind in framing the general programme of Parliamentary work.

Mr. Woodburn: As I gathered from the propaganda during the election that since they have been in office the Conservative Government have been mismanaging the nationalised industries, may we have a White Paper setting all their charges against themselves?

Mr. Butler: I do not think that any Conservative could have used language equivalent to that used by the right hon. Gentleman the member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell), who is not in his place today, when, referring to the introduction of the legislation on nationalised industries, he said that it had not been fully prepared. That is precisely what we feel today in trying to implement those Statutes. As we said in our election manifesto, we are perfectly ready, when the time comes, to indicate how their efficiency could be improved. Meanwhile, we are operating them on the basis of the existing legislation.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We really cannot debate the nationalised industries on this business Question. Are there any other questions relating to business?

Mr. Peart: The Leader of the House will remember that the Select Committee on Estimates reported in July this year on atomic energy development. Did the Government take note of the Report and, if so, is it likely that we shall have a debate, or is this good Report to be pigeon-holed?

Mr. Butler: No, Sir, we have taken note of the Report, but I could not give an undertaking today about a definite time for a debate.

Mr. Chetwynd: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the Local Employment Bill affects many hon. Members—those who are afraid that their constituencies will be taken out of the Development Areas and those who are hoping to be put in? If he cannot make a statement about taking the Committee stage on the Floor of the House, so that all those Members who are interested in the matter can have an opportunity of speaking, would he at least consider extending the time for debate on Monday?

Mr. Butler: We have two days and that should be sufficient time for the Second Reading. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I will, however, pay attention to, and give an early decision on, the question of taking the Committee stage on the Floor of the House; but I must consider that in relation to our programme, because that will make some difference. If the Leader of the Opposition and other hon. Members wish it, I will give that point consideration.

Mr. Gaitskell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we on this side strongly desire the Committee stage of that Bill to be taken on the Floor of the House?

Mr. Ede: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that he has rather overloaded the programme for next Wednesday, seeing that all his powers for dealing with aliens arise virtually from one of the Measures which will be continued in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, and that it may be desirable on this occasion to have rather a long debate on the continuance of those powers under that emergency legislation?

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir. I am aware that this simple covering of the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill contains the whole problem of aliens and the legislation which has to be renewed each year. We have had many debates over the years, and, certainly, we are quite prepared to hear observations this time, but let us see how the business goes. We have no wish to hold the House back from expressing its views on this occasion.

Mr. Deedes: Can my right hon. Friend say when the White Paper on horticulture will be available?

Mr. Butler: It is, I believe, out today.

Mr. Kirk: Can my right hon. Friend hold out any prospect of a debate on the refugee problem, particularly as this is World Refugee Year—perhaps not a whole day—some time before Christmas, if possible?

Mr. Butler: I cannot give any undertaking. It might be a day on which Private Members' Motions are taken, but we will certainly look into the matter.

Mr. Nabarro: Does my right hon. Friend recall that last Tuesday he asked hon. Members on both sides of the House to keep him up to the undertaking to have an early debate on the condition of the coal industry and on the National Coal Board's recent publication, "The Revised Plan for Coal"? Can he say when it is proposed to have that debate?

Mr. Butler: I said in my speech the other night that we would probably take this on the same day as we deal with the borrowing powers so as to give an opportunity for a general debate, but we shall need a little consultation to see whether this is satisfactory.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Mr. Swingler: On a point of order. I appreciate that we have had a very limited experience of Question Time in this Parliament so far, but no doubt you will have noticed, Mr. Speaker, that we have been getting through a small number of Questions. One of the things that this would mean if it continued would be that the opportunities of hon. Members to question the Prime Minister would be very restricted indeed. Twelve Questions addressed to the Prime Minister were on the Order Paper today and there has been no opportunity for him to answer any of them.
Therefore, I wonder whether you, Mr. Speaker, on the basis of this limited experience, would, on behalf of back benchers, consult the usual channels as to whether it would be possible in this Parliament to have Questions addressed to the Prime Minister beginning at an earlier number at least once a week so that we might ensure that at least once a week there would be a full opportunity for hon. Members to question the right non. Gentleman and for him to reply.

Mr. Speaker: I am obliged to the hon. Member. I am sure that the suggestion which he has made will be considered as may be appropriate. It provides me with the opportunity to make a plea to the House. Personally, I am distressed that I am so singularly unsuccessful in inducing the House to get through more Questions, and I should like to make a general plea, addressed both to Ministers and to hon. Members, that they should

bear in mind that the length of their replies and supplementary questions has a definite bearing upon the fulfilment of the undoubted right of numbers of hon. Members to have their Questions answered orally.

Sir T. Moore: While it might be an advantage to bring the Questions to the Prime Minister nearer to the beginning of the Order Paper, would it be possible, Mr. Speaker, to take Questions to the Prime Minister at a definite time—say, 3.15 p.m.—and then return to other Questions if those to the Prime Minister do not occupy the whole of the Question period till 3.30 p.m.?

Mr. Speaker: I have no doubt that the Leader of the House will have heard the suggestion which has been made.

Mr. C. Pannell: May I draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that the time, 3.15 p.m., which has been suggested by the hon. Member for Ayr (Sir T. Moore) was a definite recommendation—it was that there should be a fixed time for taking Questions addressed to the Prime Minister—in the recent Report of the Select Committee on Procedure, as was also the suggestion that Questions should be limited to two per Member per day?
I am not asking you to rule on that now, but I should have thought that the Report of the Select Committee on Procedure might have been heeded in any consideration of this matter.

Mr. Speaker: These matters are, after all, for the consideration of the House, and no doubt the matter to which the hon. Member has referred will also be taken into account when consideration is given to what, if anything, should be done.

Mr. Ross: The Leader of the House and the House will recall that Scottish hon. Members have had considerable complaints to make about Scottish Questions, which are taken only on Tuesdays. If we make the suggested alteration about Questions to the Prime Minister, it will deprive Scottish hon. Members of a quarter of an hour of their now very limited time. We have come here from Scotland bursting with Questions to the Secretary of State for Scotland, and we shall not get a single Question answered orally by him until December.


It is bad enough having to wait with patience until then. Now to find that we are threatened with losing a quarter of an hour of our time on that day is a bit much.

Mr. Speaker: What would be worst of all would be that we should occupy time now discussing matters which can be discussed through the usual channels.

BILLS PRESENTED

ATOMIC ENERGY AUTHORITY

Bill to increase the maximum number of members of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority, and to enable the Authority to include in their pension schemes staff of the National Institute for Research and Nuclear Science, presented by Sir David Eccles; supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. R. A. Butler, and Sir Edward Boyle; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next and to be printed. [Bill 11.]

HORTICULTURE

Bill to make provision for assisting the production and marketing of horticultural produce, presented by Mr. John Hare; supported by Mr. R. A. Butler, Mr. John Maclay, Sir Edward Boyle and Mr. Godber; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next and to be printed. [Bill 10.]

OCCUPIERS' LIABILITY (SCOTLAND)

Bill to amend the law of Scotland as to the liability of occupiers and others for injury or damage occasioned to persons or property on any land or other premises by reason of the state of the premises or of anything done or omitted to be done thereon; and for purposes connected with the matter aforesaid, presented by Mr. John Maclay; supported by the Lord Advocate, and Mr. Niall Macpherson; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next and to be printed. [Bill 12.]

MR. SPEAKER MORRISON'S RETIREMENT

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. R. A. Butler): I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying Her Majesty that She will be most graciously pleased to confer some signal mark of Her Royal Favour upon the Right Honourable William Shepherd Morrison for his eminent services during the important period in which he has with such distinguished ability and dignity presided in the Chair of this House, and assuring Her Majesty that whatever expense Her Majesty shall think fit to be incurred upon that account this House will make good the same.
Six weeks ago we said good-bye in this House to Mr. Speaker Morrison. Today, we have a happy task in connection with Mr. Speaker Morrison's retirement. As I feel that the Address to Her Majesty will meet with the unanimous approval of the House, I will not detain hon. Members with any more introduction.

Mr. Hugh Gaitskell: On behalf of the Opposition, I desire to support the Motion which has been moved by the Leader of the House. Like him, I would prefer to reserve my remarks in tribute to Mr. Speaker Morrison to a later occasion which will arise, I understand, in the ordinary course of procedure. I will simply say that I am glad that the Government have brought the Motion forward and that we give it full support.

Mr. J. Grimond: On behalf of the Liberal Party, I wish to express our respect and gratitude to Mr. Speaker Morrison and to say that we also support the Motion.

Question put and agreed to.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I beg to move, That this Resolution be recorded as having been agreed to nemine contradicente.

Question, That this Resolution be recorded as having been agreed to nemine contradicente, put and agreed to

To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of Her Majesty's Household.

Orders of the Day — CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

3.49 p.m.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Reginald Maudling): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
This is a modest but important Measure to continue and improve the protection given to the British film industry. I hope and believe that it will not prove to be controversial in principle. There are, of course, a number of very important points that will have to be examined in detail during the Committee stage in Standing Committee, but I hope that the whole House will consider that the main outlines of the Bill are on the right lines.
The need for the Bill is as follows. The present authority for the quota expires in September, 1960, and to give the proper notice to the trade we ought to have this Bill renewing the authority for the quota six months ahead of that date; that is, by April next year.
When the last Bill was passed, in 1957, the Government undertook to consider the many criticisms which were made at that time of the actual working out of the quota system. In the intervening two years we have been studying this problem with the advice and assistance of both the industry and the Cinematograph Films Council. I cannot say that that advice was invariably unanimous, but there was a consensus of opinion upon which these proposals have been based.
In particular, I am happy to say that, so far as I know, all the relevant parts of the Bill which concern the Films Council are in accordance with the recommendations of the Council. As this is the first time I have addressed the House on the subject of this industry, I pay a special tribute to the Cinematograph Films Council, whose advice is so invaluable to the Government in these matters and whose concern for the affairs of the industry, for a number of years now, has been remarkable.
Initially, perhaps I should say a few words about the need for a quota to protect the British industry. It has

always seemed to me that the film industry suffers from competition of a particularly vigorous kind for the simple reason that the same film can be sold many times over. If a foreigner sells a motor car in this country, he cannot sell the same motor car in Australia as well, but he can and does sell the same film many times over. Clearly, that makes the competition and the relatively reduced amount of profit which it is worth taking in any market far more formidable than is the normal experience in the range of manufactured goods, for example. It is clear that this industry faces very severe competition.
It is also peculiar in that a tariff is not workable, because a tariff has to be imposed on the estimated value of an article as it comes into the country, and the value of a film resides not in the celluloid itself, but in the box-office takings, which cannot be determined at the time of entry into the country. Therefore, it has always been recognised that some form of a quota is the right way to protect the indigenous film industry. Indeed, that was enshrined in the G.A.T.T. in 1948, when special provision was made for the exhibitor's quota as the only means of protecting any indigenous film industry by quota.
I know that there is a good deal of interest in the question of the renter's quota. I understand that in 1948 the Films Council recommended the abolition of the renter's quota and remains of that opinion today. As people who have studied this industry know very well, the difficulty was that the system of the renter's quota brought about the abuse known as "quota quickies", and other things of that kind.
While it might be easier to deal with that problem now than it was under the original renter's quota system, the important point is that since 1948, under the G.A.T.T. to which this country is committed, it is not possible to use a renter's quota. We cannot reintroduce the renter's quota, because we are bound by international agreement not to do so. One can take encouragement from the fact that experience has not shown that the abolition of the renter's quota has reduced the degree of practical and effective protection available to British film production.
The film and the cinema industries have been going through extremely difficult times. Attendances have fallen from the very high figure of 1,635 million in 1946 to 755 million in 1958—and I gather that the tendency is still downwards. Within that very much declining total of exhibition and admission, British films have been holding their own surprisingly well. The number of British feature films produced has remained encouragingly steady, and it is a fact that, between 1950 and 1958, while the gross rentals of foreign films fell by 25 per cent., the gross rentals of British made films increased by 25 per cent. That is a very encouraging picture. At the same time, the industry has made great efforts to expand its export sales, and I understand that it is now earning foreign currencies and sterling from the sterling area at a rate of about £5 million per annum.
Considerable assistance has been given to the industry in recent years. There has been the work of the National Film Finance Corporation, which has been working very hard in often very difficult circumstances to bring support and assistance to the industry. There is the levy, which was introduced as a statutory feature in the last Measure. I can tell the House that the provisional figures for the last year, the second year of operation of the levy, which ended on 17th October, show a total of £3,850,000, which is £180,000 up on the year before.
Finally, as we all know, the Entertainments Duty was reduced. The future of the tax is unlikely to be an appropriate subject for debate this afternoon, but the fact is that last year, while gross takings were down £9·5 million, the reduction in Entertainments Duty was £12·2 million, thereby more than counterbalancing the falling off in the actual revenues of the cinemas.

Mr. Douglas Jay: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that his predecessor told us in advance what was to be done with that tax in the next Budget? Will he do the same?

Mr. Maudling: I recall that the party opposite made a lot of fuss about it, but I do not think that it would be appropriate to make any predictions this afternoon.
Probably one of the best pieces of evidence for the effect of the quota is shown in the figures for the quota year to the end of September, 1958—the latest figures available—when British first features held 35·4 per cent. of screen time compared with a quota which, allowing for special exceptions, would have been about 25·9 per cent., so that the showing accorded to British first feature films—and this remains roughly the same at present—is a good deal in excess of the minimum determined by the quota.
On the other hand, that is not a reason for abolishing the quota. Without a quota, that sort of satisfactory performance could not possibly be maintained. If there were no quota to protect British film production, one would expect to find a far more vigorous assault on our market by foreign film producing interests. We conclude that the quota has done its job and is doing its job and we ask the House, in Clause 1, to continue it until the end of 1967.
For the rest of my remarks I want to keep to the main provisions of the Bill and briefly to explain their purpose.

Mr. John Diamond: Will the right hon. Gentleman say why it should be 1967 and not nineteen-sixty something else?

Mr. Maudling: I think that it has been the practice to go in ten-year periods. We originally suggested a ten-year period in 1957, although that was not acceptable at the time. We are now taking ten years from the 1957 Bill.

Mrs. Eirene White: The 1957 Bill had nothing to do with quotas, but was concerned with the Film Finance Agency. I suppose that what was in the mind of the Board of Trade then—and the right hon. Gentleman will know that better than I—was to keep this in line with the Film Finance Agency period of ten years rather than the quota, which normally would take one to 1968.

Mr. Maudling: As so often in these matters, the hon. Lady is right. If the party opposite wishes to change the date, the matter can be discussed in Committee.
Clause 2 brings news-reels into the scope of the quota and also into a share in the levy, a share which will have to be settled by regulations under the existing Act. We feel that this is necessary


because news-reel producers have been suffering increasingly severe competition. In fact, some of them have been driven out of business. We feel that in the national interest, both at home and abroad, the production of British news-reels should be maintained. We therefore feel that it is right for the news-reels to have both quota protection and a share in the levy.
Clause 2 makes the necessary provision for that and also includes detailed conditions which must be fulfilled before news-reels can claim British treatment. It also provides for the special registration of news-reels after a first appearance rather than before. This is necessary because of their technical nature. I hope that it will be agreed that it is right that news-reels should now be accorded this treatment.
Clause 3 deals with the development of new techniques such as recording films on magnetic tape or wire rather than on the conventional celluloid.
Clause 4 is designed to deal with what is the growing practice of giving films, particularly non-standard films, very long runs. It enables exhibitors who indulge in this practice to fulfil their quota obligations over two years instead of one but there is provision here for consultation with the Cinematograph Films Council, which is a necessary safeguard.
Clause 5 deals with the question of exemption or partial relief from the full quota obligations. The House is aware that there are many technical breaches of the quota regulations which, on investigation, are found to be really excusable. Our objective is to concentrate our efforts on the relatively minor number of defaults which are culpable and should be treated as such. We are abolishing the need for the exhibitor himself to make application for special treatment, and giving more discretion to the Cinematograph Films Council. In this way the provision for enforcing the quota will, in practice, be made more effective and, here again, I believe this is in accordance with the views of the Films Council.
Clause 6 deals with the important matter of British content. I am sure that everyone recognises that we must not be too parochial about this. The film, being such an international medium of expression, and artists, producers, and

directors being able to move from country to country, advances in international participation in films should not be destroyed by a too parochial nationalistic outlook. On the other hand, we have legislation designed to protect the interests of those engaged in the production of British films. It is important that this legislation should be properly observed.
The purpose of Clause 6 is to widen the definition of "cost" and, equally important to deal with what is said to be a way of getting round the British content condition. In theory, people are paid very small or nominal sums by the producers of the film but, at the same time, they receive large sums from somewhere else, thereby distorting the proper calculation of the true British content of the film. The powers given to the Board of Trade under this Clause will enable us to deal with any abuse.
Clause 7 deals with a strange anomaly. Sound recording that has not up to now been covered by quota legislation. It will now be brought in under Clause 7.
Clause 8 deals with producers and directors. I suppose that they are of fundamental importance to the character of a film. The Clause provides that if a film is to qualify as British everyone engaged as a producer or director, except one, must be a British subject, or a citizen of the Republic of Ireland, or resident in the Commonwealth. It means that there can be only one director or producer from outside those named territories. Again, this is one way of ensuring that the intention of Parliament in the matter of British content is properly observed in practice.
Clause 9 is to deal with a complaint made to us that films made in the United Kingdom by a subsidiary of a foreign company are often shown abroad as having been produced by that foreign company, and without proper attribution to the subsidiary company that made the film in this country. This is a protection for the British film industry in its world wide trade and we hope that it will be effective.
Clause 10 is particularly interesting. It deals with the question of co-production. We have in mind co-operation with some of the European film makers. No country in Europe can provide a market on its own adequate enough to


sustain more than a very small number of highly successful productions. There has been a growing practice in Europe for producers in two countries to collaborate on a film which is then shown in either country and given national treatment in both countries.

Mr. Diamond: A common market?

Mr. Maudling: This tendency will go on developing and should be encouraged from the point of view of this country. It is difficult to prophesy how this will work, but the principle is that our producers should be enabled to collaborate with producers in other countries on a proper basis laid down beforehand.
The joint product should be treated here and in the country concerned as having national status and receiving national treatment. In all these matters we should aim at a reasonable degree of reciprocity with the countries concerned, but provision is made that this should in practice be carried out by Orders in Council.
Clause 11 is a small point dealing with what I am told are called "scrap book" films and to avoid confusion that is liable to arise in connection with them.
Clause 12 is designed to give the producer of a film a little more freedom to exploit his products to the maximum by enabling him to alter the title and even the length of his film. Clause 13 ensures that in using that freedom nevertheless the title must be properly registered and there should be no using of the greater freedom to get round the provision of the quota.
Clauses 14 and 15 hang together. Clause 15 makes provision for an increase in the registration fees. We do not intend to make such an increase at the moment, but we are taking this power because costs of administration tend to rise and we must continue to remember that the fees to be paid should cover those costs. At the same time, if fees go up it seems reasonable to provide, as we do in Clause 14, for quarterly licences for those exhibitors who have a seasonal trade only and may be affected by the increase unless they have the new provision.
Clause 16 deals with new technical developments. Films made by new

methods and on new materials cannot be judged in comparison with conventional films by the physical length of the piece of material. For the physical length of the material we are to substitute the actual playing time. This is clear common sense and the only way in which we can deal with these new developments.
The provisions in Clauses 17 and 18 are minor ones which no doubt we can examine in detail if hon. Members wish to do so.
Those, briefly, are the general purposes of the Bill. As I said at the beginning, it is a modest Measure but an important one, and I am happy to think that it has been based on so much wise and experienced advice both from the industry and from the Cinematograph Films Council. I hope, therefore, that the House will give the Bill a Second Reading this afternoon.

4.8 p.m.

Mrs. Eirene White: As the President of the Board of Trade said, this is a relatively minor, but important, Bill for the industry concerned. We are very glad that in his new office as President of the Board of Trade the right hon. Gentleman has chosen this Bill for his debut at the Dispatch Box.
The Bill is what we in the House of Commons would normally call a Committee stage Bill, rather than a Second Reading Bill, in the sense that there are a great many detailed points to which we shall have to give considerable attention during the Committee stage. If the Parliamentary Secretary, who, I think, will be with us more than the President of the Board of Trade, hopes that he will get away to his lunch early on any of those days, may I disabuse him of that hope from the outset.
There are a number of detailed matters which, although they have been the subject of lengthy consultations between officials of the Board of Trade and the interests concerned, do not necessarily satisfy everyone. As Her Majesty's Opposition it is our duty to see that where there are any substantial differences of opinion on any of these points they are fully aired and debated. We shall do this in a completely co-operative spirit, because the political aspects of the industry do not enter into the Bill to a great extent.
While I am speaking of the nature of the Bill as a whole, I want to make one small plea, namely, that the Board of Trade will consider either publishing a consolidation Bill, or doing what was done in the 1948 Act, which was to print, as a Schedule, the amended 1938 Act. We now have the 1938 Act, the 1948 Act, the 1957 Act, and this 1959 Bill. This is legislation by reference, and it is our duty to see that we give the public documents which can be easily used. I do not think that in its present state the Bill is such a document, and as we are all in rather a reformist mood in this new Parliament we might well consider whether we could present the public, at the end of our discussions, with something which it can more easily handle and refer to.
The main object of the Bill is to deal with quota. The quota provisions were not included in the 1957 Act, for reasons which the right hon. Gentleman has touched upon. To many of us it has seemed unfortunate—although we fully appreciate that it is due to an accident of film history, back in the 'twenties—that for quota purposes this country says, "You must play a minimum of British films," instead of saying, "You may not play more than a certain number of foreign films." We would have hoped to be able to supply our cinema screens with a sufficient number of British films to enable us to put the terms of the quota that way round.
However, we have not been able to do so in the past, and I suppose that even now, with the quite encouraging background which the right hon. Gentleman gave us, when we have reached the stage of being able to supply about 35 per cent. of British films to our cinemas, we must accept the verdict of the facts and continue upon the basis of legislating for a minimum number of British films rather than putting the emphasis on the foreign product. It is regrettable, but there it is. We must accept the fact that this Bill, as did previous ones, proceeds on that basis.
As the right hon. Gentleman said, there has been a good deal of concern in certain sections of the industry—more particularly among the trade unions—that the Bill deals only with the exhibitors' quota and not the renters' quota. There is still a feeling among those working in

the industry that we would be able to improve upon the figure of 35 per cent. in respect of the British product if, somehow or other, we found a way of getting round G.A.T.T. and restoring the renters' quota. I am sure that the President of the Board of Trade is ingenious enough to find a way of getting round the terms of G.A.T.T. if he genuinely wants to.

Mr. Jay: A dangerous thought.

Mrs. White: As my right hon. Friend says, it is a dangerous thought. We should not wish him to exercise that ingenuity unless we thought there was a convincing case for it.
My view is that we should not be doing a service to the British film production industry by restoring the renters' quota, although I recognise that there are arguments in its favour. I believe that there are other more positive ways of helping British film production, although it would not be in order for me to go into them now. For instance, there is the policy of the National Film Finance Corporation, in respect of which we are not in entire agreement with the view of the Government. But I do not think that we would achieve the best results in quality as well as quantity if we restored the renters' quota.
In those circumstances I feel that it would be difficult to urge the right hon. Gentleman to find some way of thwarting G.A.T.T. However, there is strong feeling about the matter in certain quarters, and it may be that some of my hon. Friends will wish to pursue this matter further in Committee. I therefore give notice of that fact.
The positive provisions of the Bill fall into three or four main compartments. Naturally, after the passage of time one would expect that in our legislation we would have had to take notice of new developments in the technique of the cinema industry, and that we would have made some provision for bringing in the various new methods of producing and projecting films. That matter is, quite rightly and properly, dealt with in the Bill, including the alteration from the old familiar provisions for so many thousand feet to so many minutes' playing time. That is a sensible alteration.
It rather surprises me, however, that the Bill seems to have paid very little


attention to the fact that during the passage of years since 1938 the value of money has changed. Although it is true that the Board of Trade makes arrangements to increase its fees—it has not overlooked that—in other respects it seems to have forgotten the changing value of money. For example, in the Second Schedule labour costs are left almost exactly where they were in 1938. In 1938, the criterion of 10s. a foot was laid down. It is now £50 per minute of playing time. If we take 90 feet as equalling one minute of playing time we see that it would amount to £45 at 1938 values, and the increase has been only to £50. The right hon. Gentleman is telling us that the change in the value of money between 1938 and 1959 can be correctly stated upon the basis of £45 then equalling £50 now. I cannot believe that his economics are as weak as that.
I do not want to labour this point, because I know that labour costs are not of first importance in considering the quota. However, they have a certain significance in preserving the general standard of films, including short films, and it is completely unrealistic to increase the financial provisions only to the extent of £5 in regard to labour costs. This point should be looked at again, although, as I have said, labour costs are of relatively minor significance, because almost every film which qualifies for quota bears well above the minimum labour costs.
We shall probably find ourselves in complete agreement on some of the other important provisions of the Bill, except, perhaps, on points of detail. We all recognise that in the present state of the film industry the exhibition side has been in very great difficulty in recent years. Attendances have been falling, and cinemas have been closing. It is only proper to temper the wind to the exhibitors. It is right that there should be some relaxation of the conditions whereby they can obtain remission of their duties under quota. Such a provision is well justified in the light of present conditions in the industry.
In principle, at least, though perhaps not in every detail, we would support the proposals made in the Clauses dealing with the exhibitors. One provision which will be particularly useful to the very

small exhibitor is the raising of the exemption limit from £100 to £125 in respect of takings. That will let out the very small man. Further, it is now to be calculated as net, after deduction not only of tax but also of the levy. That further increases the value of the provision.
Although we welcome that on behalf of the exhibitor, however, we must remember that by exempting a larger number of exhibitors from quota obligations we are possibly depriving a certain number of cinema patrons of the chance of seeing British films. I refer to those living in small market towns where, in future, one might have an undiluted diet of Westerns and horror films from the United States. That is not desirable in itself, but we can appreciate the difficulty of the small exhibitor, and we should not cavil at the extra relief granted to him and the slight easing of the procedure, which has sometimes been a burden upon him. On that aspect, I think that we can find ourselves reasonably in accord.
Now we come to one of the main proposals in the Bill, which is to include newsreels. This is not quite as simple as the President of the Board of Trade tried to make out. After all, it raises some questions of principle which I think the House should consider very carefully. The real argument put forward by the newsreel companies is that they cannot carry on commercially without the help of and participation in the levy, and the whole object of bringing them into the quota has nothing to do with the quota, but is to make them eligible for the levy. They cannot carry on without the help of the levy, because the demands for their products in this country have very rapidly and substantially declined.
The reason is not hard to seek. We now have an admirable news service on television, and the ordinary patron of the cinema is quite likely to have seen a better-produced, better-edited and more up-to-date version of the day's news on his television set than he will find at his local cinema. Therefore, the demand for newsreels in this country has fallen very sharply. In fact, a large number of cinemas—one of the major circuits and one of the middle-sized ones, Granada—I think I am right in saying, no longer take newsreels at all, while


others are perhaps a little lukewarm in their desires.
The real argument for this new provision has nothing to do with the cinemas in this country. The only substantial argument is about who is to pay for showing British newsreels in countries overseas. There one comes up against this problem. If we make newsreels eligible for the levy in this country, we are taking away money from the producers of feature films or other short films to give it to the newsreels.
We shall be depleting the levy fund; either that or we are going to ask for more levy, which would be a burden which I am sure the exhibitors would not wish to carry. Therefore, we are asking, in effect, that the producers of British feature films and other short films should subsidise the newsreels so that newsreels should be shown as projections of the British way of life, or whatever we call it, in countries overseas.
There are other sources from which film material can be obtained for showing overseas. There is the Central Office of Information, which produces some of its own, and there is another non-profit making company with which the Rank Organisation and Canadian and Australian interests are concerned, which also produces material, primarily for television, but which can also be used for cinema showing in overseas countries.
We are told that the ordinary commercial buyers of films for showing at commercial cinemas in about 125 counties altogether overseas would not be likely to get what they want from the products of the C.O.I. and the other bodies, that they must have the ordinary cinema newsreel, and that they will not take anything else. If we wish to show the British way of life, we must, somehow or other, keep the newsreel companies alive in this country so that the newsreels shall be shown. This is a matter of national public relations, but we are not going to do this as a national effort—as part of the job of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster—but are to ask the British film producers to do the job for us.
We ought seriously to consider whether that is the right way of doing it, and whether it is the proper thing in

principle. I should feel much happier about doing it this way if I thought that the newsreels sent overseas were adequate representations of the British way of life, but when one thinks of the contents of an ordinary newsreel seen in a cinema one can hardly be satisfied.
I have no objection to a very large proportion of newsreels which are devoted to the rather duller aspects of the Royal Family, but when one thinks of almost any newsreel, one sees a formal occasion in which a member of the Royal Family is taking part. One sees a sporting event of some kind, and one has no objection to that, because it is a matter of general, if not universal, interest. Then we see somebody launching a battleship, or one of our Ministers opening an exhibition. One hardly ever sees anything that would be considered what we might call a "people-to-people" item in these newsreels.
In other words, they are highly conventional, and to many of us seem to be a very inadequate representation of the British people or the British way of life. I must, therefore, warn the Minister that this Clause is not likely to be accepted unquestioned. There are matters of principle behind it which we ought very fully to consider before we decide whether to accept it or not.
I come now to what I would say is the major provision in this Bill, which is the extension of the quota privileges to films made under what are usually called co-production arrangements. This might be of very considerable importance to British film production. I am sure that with his great interest in the European Free Trade Area and the Seven the President of the Board of Trade himself will be very fully aware of the possible value of such arrangements. There is no doubt that in the European Free Trade Area, the countries concerned have already established a considerable degree of co-operation in film production. In France, Italy and Germany particularly, there have been for some years co-production arrangements whereby a French film made with Italian co-operation counts as French in France and as Italian in Italy, and by so doing they get across all the difficulties of the quota arrangements in one country and the most fantastic double fees in another, and it is, therefore,


possible for films to be exhibited in both countries.
It would be generally welcomed by our forward-looking producers in this country that we should have these arrangements. It is quite right to do what is suggested in the Bill, and not to have what one might call an open licence for this but negotiate these agreements very carefully between Great Britain and each of the other countries concerned. We want to see that our own interests are fully protected in these matters, both at the star and director level and at the ordinary worker's level, and see that we get a proper quid pro quo on the exhibition side as well.
For some years in this country, we have had a species of co-production arrangement with the American interests. We have had a considerable degree of American finance and personnel, though, unfortunately, partly owing to the structure of the American industry, we have not had anything like reciprocity on the exhibition side for films made by Anglo-American interests. This extension of co-production to other countries is to be welcomed. We should have a cross-fertilisation of talent, which is always a good thing, particularly with the very live industry which there is in certain countries, notably at the moment in France, and this is a proper step which should do nothing but good.
If we are to have these films brought in line with our quota, and eligible for quota, I think that it would be very helpful if the Government spokesman would make clear that they have to be taken into account when drawing the level of the quota. If these films come about in any number, and, therefore, increase the total number of films available for exhibition in this country, naturally one would expect to see a higher quota level in order to include them; just as, if newsreels are to be brought in for quota purposes, the quota should be increased to take that into account. We should have some assurance that this will be looked at by the Board of Trade when the time comes.
Another thing that I wish to mention in this connection is that nowhere in the Bill do we take any account of the fact that television has arrived. If these co-production films are to be brought in for quota purposes, are we to do anything

to make sure that they are primarily cinematograph films in the sense that we normally use that word in our legislation? As the Minister will no doubt know, in this country the exhibiting interests have taken their own steps—under what is called "Fido"—to protect themselves against the encroachments of television.
But these films will be exhibited not only in this country but abroad, and I think we ought at least to consider whether we are to extend the protection of quota to films which may be used for television rather than for cinematograph purposes. We should be quite sure that we know what we are doing. One does not wish to be unduly restrictive, but I think that a fair point when we realise the very great competition which the cinema has to face from television. In general, we welcome this and think it a healthy expansion of British film production which will give great opportunities to the lively, up-and-coming film producers. But we think it must be looked at rather carefully to make sure that we shall give a fair deal to our people.
There are not many other points in the Bill which we need discuss at this stage although, once again, I should like to sound a warning note about Clause 7. which is concerned with the studio. I might make the general point that when we were first contemplating this legislation we thought there might be very much more controversy than perhaps there may be now over the question of defining what is a British film. That caused many headaches in the legal department at the Board of Trade and elsewhere. Now that the Bill is before us there is very little concerning the definition of what is or is not a British film, but on the point of what is or is not a British studio we may run into a little difficulty.
At present, and under the Clause as it now stands, a British studio can be anywhere in Her Majesty's Dominions. It has been put to us that we should narrow this definition to that of a studio in the United Kingdom. That is something which will have to be thought about rather carefully. The reason is, partly, that unless we can keep our cinema studios in the United Kingdom fully occupied we may find that they are devoted to other purposes, and that may have a detrimental effect on British film production.


This may appear rather a narrow point but I think that it must be looked at carefully at a later stage.
There is also some feeling about the Republic: of Ireland, not so much I think about the nationality of any person concerned, because we are accustomed to having Irish, Scots and—like myself—Welsh coming to England.

Sir Leslie Plummer: They are very welcome.

Mr. John Rankin: And the English coming to Scotland.

Mrs. White: It is a matter of the use of studios in Ireland and the suggestion that they, too, may perhaps be counted as being within the definition of British. I mention these points in passing to give a preliminary warning to the Parliamentary Secretary that there are quite a number of things in this perhaps rather simple looking Bill which will have to be considered at a later stage.
The Bill deals primarily with technicalities and does not attempt to deal with the more fundamental problems of the industry. I have mentioned that we on this side of the House have always regretted what we thought the rather narrow outlook of the Government in some directions, particularly concerning the National Film Finance Corporation. Proposals have been put forward in certain sections of the exhibiting industry in recent months—as I think that every Parliamentary candidate in the recent General Election will know—for some scheme of rationalisation on the exhibiting side of the industry. The exhibitors have seen what the Government were prepared to do for cotton, which is in a declining state, and they ask, "Why cannot you do the same for us?"
Had there been a Labour Government in office some years ago we should have taken a much greater initiative in this matter. About three years ago when Mr. John Davis, of the Rank Organisation, made proposals which, admittedly, were not taken up at the time by the rest of the industry, I think that a rather more forward-looking Government could have done something about these things. However, that was not done and one cannot perhaps expect this Government, with their philosophy, to enter that field now. But I think that a great deal more

could have been done to help the exhibiting side of the industry to help itself.
We can hardly allow the Bill to pass without a reference—though I know that any more than a reference would be out of order—to the continuation of the Entertainments Duty. No matter what we may do by way of legislation to improve the administration of the quota, and so on, our labours will surely be in vain if the industry is not enabled to prosper in general. I am quite certain that those of us who have been concerned about the industry for many years cannot be happy with a state of affairs in which cinema attendances are still, unfortunately, declining. The latest figures give a 20 per cent. decrease in the last two quarters, but, nevertheless, the industry—it is the only entertainment industry of which this is expected—has to carry this still quite crushing burden of duty.
Although I am well aware that one cannot deploy all the arguments for the complete abolition of the tax on this occasion, one would be failing in one's duty if one allowed the Bill to pass without pointing out that no matter what good things there may be in it—there are some good things in it—they are likely to be of no use unless at an early date the Chancellor removes this burden upon the industry.

4.39 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Hirst: On one or two previous occasions I have had the pleasure, as I have today, of following the hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) in debates of this character. I am always very pleased to do so, because the hon. Lady addresses herself to these matters with substantial impartiality. In fact, normally she is almost wholly impartial, but this afternoon there was one minor "dig" about the Entertainments Duty which we do not mind very much because we realise that the last time a Labour Government were in power they increased the duty. They may have an opportunity in a few year's time to deal with the remainder of the duty which is still being charged—but we must not pursue that subject now.
My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade drew attention—the other matter has some bearing on this, though not as much as some would have


—to the level of film attendances. It is sad that they have fallen very substantially. Perhaps, at this particular time, the very fine summer has added statistically to the picture. I thought it very right of him, also, if I may say, to draw attention to the remarkable part which the British film industry has indicated it can play in diminishing this difficulty by producing a large proportion of really first-class films, very much better films than ever before. This must have played a part in the very commendable export results.
Not many years ago we were congratulating the film industry on bringing exports up to £2 million, and the fact that the figure has, in spite of all the difficulties which attend these matters, including the importance of having a large and firm home base, been able to reach a figure in the neighbourhood of £5 million shows that the industry has substantially rationalised itself and has played a very fine part in helping tur export trade. As we all know, films have a very high conversion value, and they are a very important type of export.
As my right hon. Friend said, the importance of the quota is paramount. Although the exhibitors have played their part, I believe that it acts as a kind of carrot or incentive to maintain as high a level of exhibition for British films as possible.
The hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East said several things with which I agreed. I particularly liked her suggestion that it would be rather good at some time to have a consolidation Measure. I am one of those who, at heart, really hate legislation. I wish that we could have a nice long legislative holiday so that we could consolidate a great deal of the law which now stands on the Statute Book. This is a very nice consolidation Measure. It should be easy to work, and it should have considerable value.
I am not sure that I quite agree with the hon. Lady on the subject of news-reels. I feel that any industry must play its part in the firm home base argument to which I referred. We cannot expect someone else, the poor old taxpayer—generally, in this House, called the Government—to foot the bills which

arise from the export of the British way of life, and so forth. The industry must play its part, also. If we are to have the benefit of the British way of life, as it is mirrored by newsreels, disseminated widely, then, quite frankly, the opportunity for increasing or, rather, maintaining as much of the home base as possible as a cost-covering factor must be taken. This consideration, surely, must be behind my right hon. Friend's suggestion in the Bill to include news-reels for quota, and therefore, of course, for them to have the advantage of production funds.
I regard the Bill as an excellent one. In any case, we had to have one, whether excellent or not. That, of course, is a rather better reason for legislation than some which I have come across. I applaud the new departure of giving quota to news films as such.
Clause 12, I think, will require some discussion. I do not think that my right hon. Friend referred to it; if he did, I missed his comments. Clause 12 provides for amendment of the register. In my view, it will be necessary to safeguard our procedure against the same film being used twice for quota purposes under a different title. I have been informed that there is a slight danger of that, and I think that we should, in Committee, although the matter has not been mentioned so far from the Dispatch Box on either side of the House, consider it as one of the minor points needing our attention.
I approve of the tidying-up operation, if I may so call it, which provides that the quota year shall become the calendar year. That is the sort of tidying-up operation I should like to see carried out in respect of certain other things. I wish that our financial year could be treated in the same way, so that hon. Members would not have to take their holidays at the most crowded and most expensive time in August.
My right hon. Friend referred to Clause 5, which deals with exemption or partial exemption. I feel that these provisions are rather more realistic than those we have had hitherto, especially in what they may do to help a little the smaller cinemas, or those of medium size, namely, cinemas showing films for periods shorter than one week. This is a much-needed reform.
I am interested in Clause 6, which deals with labour costs, and I suppose, also, that at some point this Clause was designed to be an honest effort to clarify a little the matter of British content. If we are really honest, we must realise that so-called British content for quota purposes has been much fiddled in years gone by. It is an extremely difficult mischief to catch, in certain ways. To some extent, perhaps, home circumstances which required certain funds to remain in this country for sterling purposes have encouraged this running away from normal virtue.
Clause 9, to which my right hon. Friend did refer, requires the credits of the films to mention the name and address of the producer. I am at one with the British Film Producers' Association in its representation which, I suppose, has reached the Board of Trade, that the words, "This is a British film", or words to that effect, would be much better. There seems to be an unfortunate tendency sometimes not to use those words. Even British European Airways ran away from the term.
I do not suppose that any such intention was in the mind of the Board of Trade in this particular matter, but I feel that it would be very much better to show words such as I suggest instead of the name of some company which may not always be known or which, sometimes, quite frankly, although the name of a so-called British company, has a content which very few people would recognise as such. If the intention is to make the matter perfectly clear, that a film is a British film, then for heaven's sake let us be proud of it and say so. With those few words I welcome the Bill.

4.47 p.m.

Mr. John Diamond: There was a previous occasion when I attempted to indicate what seemed to me to be the obvious and logical connecting links between the levy and Entertainments Duty in order to demonstrate that we were fiddling with the problem until we had firmly removed for all time the Entertainments Duty. The occupant of the Chair at that time, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, was not impressed by my logic. He drew me to order, suggesting that the matter could not be other than referred to. I wish

merely to make it clear that the fact that I do not now refer to it should not be taken as indicating approval of that appalling, shocking, malicious selective tax. I come, therefore, immediately to the Bill.
As the President of the Board of Trade rightly said, the cinema industry, particularly the exhibition side, suffers from very great competition. If I may say so, it suffers, perhaps, more competition than is evident on these benches today. I must, however, add that I ought to take this opportunity to thank all the many hon. Members who, out of their sense of self-sacrifice and their desire to assist, offered to come to my aid this morning when I had the grave responsibility of taking round this building thirty-nine of the most beautiful women in the world. One is always impressed by the camaraderie and helpfulness which comes from both sides of the Chamber at all events on occasions of that kind.
The competition in the cinema industry is very great, and I give this Bill a very substantial welcome for its main provisions—Clause 10 and the Clause which deals with newsreels.
Clause 10 can be referred to very shortly. It is a great pleasure to note that the President of the Board of Trade, in his new position, has been able to remove the barriers to the international art of the film maker much more effectively than he has, in his other capacity, when he has been at, so it seemed to us, horrible sixes and sevens with his problems. We give the greatest possible welcome to Clause 10.
As to newsreels, at the risk of detaining the House for an unnecessary additional ten seconds, I might perhaps be allowed to say that, although I had at one time a considerable interest in this industry inasmuch as I was managing director of a company which exhibited newsreels and ran news theatres, I have had no such interest since I have been back in this House. That does not prevent one from having a slight knowledge of the problem and I know that the House is always willing to listen to those who speak with some experience.
I hope that the Government will be quite firm in assisting the exhibition side of newsreels, wherever there are arguments which might impinge one way or the other. It is perfectly true that the


newsreel ceased to be a commercial proposition when television came in. It is an extremely expensive article to produce for the exhibitor because, as hon. Members know, he has to take many copies immediately and each exhibitor, instead of showing, as normally, a subsidiary copy, shows an expensively produced copy at the same time as all the other exhibitors. This adds enormously to the expense and in relation to the amount of running time is prohibitively expensive unless people are most anxious to see the news.
It is proper for me to say, with the authority of one who was interested in running news theatres, that if people were not interested to come to a news theatre to see the news they would a fortiori not be interested in going anywhere else to see the news. People ceased to be interested in going to news theatres to see the news, because news means simply what it says. People want to know about it on the day. If it takes three days or in some cases six days or even longer to present the news, it is less valuable to people than their seeing it at the time on television or later in the television news, the same day. Therefore, the news-reel ceased to serve its purpose and practically became extinct.
I understand that there are only two producers of newsreels at the moment. One, I am told on considerable authority, would have ceased to produce newsreels had it not been for the Government's undertaking to introduce this Bill. I do not know whether that is so and whether the Government will confirm that, but I am told this on the authority of a director of the company concerned and, therefore, I accept it. It makes quite obviously commercial sense.
There is, therefore, every possible justification for introducing this Measure to help the newsreels, otherwise we run into the danger of having no newsreels at all. The most fundamental thing about newsreels has not been mentioned so far. It would be a dreadful position if we had only one newspaper telling us everything that the editor of that newspaper thought fit to tell us, and we should be put in a frightful position if we had only one newsreel showing us its version of the news.
Quite apart from the enormous advantage of showing the British way of life overseas—which is an argument for the C.O.I. claim in face of the other producers losing part of their levy—there is an enormous argument for trying to keep in existence two competitive newsreels so that the public who come to see the news will have the opportunity to see two aspects of the truth. A lot of labour goes into the production of a newsreel and, for all these reasons, I support the Government in bringing in provisions which will help the exhibitors of newsreels.
I hope that it is right to assume that the newsreel will be multiplied by two-and-a-half in order to count for levy purposes as other "shorts" do. I think that is provided for somewhere in the Bill, and I have no doubt that the Parliamentary Secretary, when he replies, will be able to say that a newsreel will count as a short counts—two-and-a-half times its normal length for the purposes of levy.
Apart from that, there is not much that I need say about the newsreels. I share the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) that it is to some extent proper that this should be a burden on the Exchequer rather than a burden on other producers, but there is no evidence of the Treasury being willing to bear that burden, and until that happens one must welcome the chance which the trade has and the exhibitors have of being assisted in these very difficult circumstances.
I am encouraged by a Bill which refers to newsreels to talk for a moment about the possibility of taking a newsreel of the proceedings in this House. I do not know whether the Parliamentary Secretary thinks that his responsible and onerous duties and his high standing in the Ministerial ranks justifies him in committing the Government today by a statement as to whether newsreels of what goes on in this Chamber and elsewhere in the House will be permitted.
I do not know whether his position will enable him to say, as I hope that he will say, that he is wholly against newsreels, inasmuch as he is wholly against the televising of what goes on in this Chamber. It would be quite wrong for a newsreel to be taken exclusively


of what goes on in the Chamber judging by the few hon. Members there are in this House at the present time. There are four or five benches occupied by most distinguished hon. Members and the rest are blank. The reason is that hon. Members on both sides of the House have onerous work to do which they cannot do in the Chamber. They have a great variety of duties. It would give an utterly misleading impression of what goes on in the House if a newsreel or indeed television were to be allowed of merely what goes on in the Chamber.
You will see immediately, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that these two proposals have such great lack of merit that they ought rot to be introduced. I hope that I have not offended in any sense in letting the Minister know my views, because television is directly connected with newsreels which we are discussing today.
I say to the Government that we are most anxious that this Bill should be brought into effect. We welcome the Clauses dealing with newsreels and those dealing with the Common Market.
I am most anxious that, where there is any doubt as between the competing interests of the trade, for the time being, at all events, the exhibitors should have the benefit of the doubt, particularly as we have not heard today that the Government are repenting for their sins and intend to abolish the Entertainments Duty.

4.58 p.m.

Mr. Ray Mawby: I agree wholeheartedly with what the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond) said about newsreels. We must aim at ensuring that there is a selection of stories told, not just one story. That is one of the main reasons why we on this side of the House decided that there should be a second television channel, with results which are obvious. That brings me to Clause 11, which deals with old films. I hope that we can say to the television authorities that old films should form only a very small part of the programme. If I said any more on that, I should be out of order on the Bill.

Mr. Rankin: On a point of order. In case that statement tends to limit the debate, may I ask whether it is not clear that we have a wide scope in dealing with the Bill?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Gordon Tonche): Nothing has been said so far which is out of order. Perhaps we had better wait and see how we get on.

Mr. Mawby: I am trying to ensure that I remain in order. I was talking rather in parenthesis when I spoke about the large number of old films which seem to appear quite regularly on the two television channels. I will leave it there.
We congratulate the film producers of this country on the way in which they assist our export earnings not only because of the money which the producers receive for films exhibited throughout the world but also because of the prestige which this country and its industries enjoy as a result of the British way of life being shown in all parts of the world. This is not confined to the feature films. We have had and continue to have some first-class feature films which attract vast attendances throughout the world, but, in addition, when British-produced newsreels show to the rest of the world the British way of life, it gives a chance for the world to see what makes people in Britain tick.
However much the Central Office of Information, the British Council and similar fine organisations can do, it is always useful to have additional organisations which tell this story throughout the world. Any assistance which can be given to our film-producing industry is extremely important. One of the sorry things which one has to record is that a quota system is necessary. It is not very pleasant to have to say it, but an X certificate on a film seems to be an added inducement to people to go to see it, whatever the quality, the nature or the craftsmanship of the film.
We should record that British producers do not seem to have jumped on the bandwagon of those who seek to produce films which will gain an X certificate and as a consequence will presumably earn a good deal of revenue. British producers can be congratulated, in the main, on producing films of a high standard which are not trying to pander to some of the feelings which apparently many members of the British public have in saying that because a film has been given an X certificate—in


the same way as if a book has been banned—they ought to leave no stone unturned in their endeavours to see it. Perhaps because of those traits, it is necessary that we should continue a quota to make certain that exhibitors play their part in providing a basic market for British producers, just as so many other British producers rely upon a basic home market to ensure that they can provide the best possible material to send to other parts of the world.
The question of the Entertainments Duty is outside the Bill, but I believe that the last step taken by the Chancellor of the Exchequer has given great assistance to the smaller cinema, in the smaller town, which is more of a social institution than perhaps the larger cinema, which probably is not so much a social requirement in a very large town. There has been an injection of new life-blood into many of our smaller cinemas, particularly in rural areas such as in my constituency. I hope that it will not be too long before the Chancellor makes another effort and removes the Entertainments Duty from this industry as early as possible.
One point which must be remembered, and which many people seem to disregard, is that the Entertainments Duty is levied on the patron and not on the owner of the cinema. This has a bearing on the view taken by many people that if the tax is removed it should immediately benefit the cinema proprietor rather than reduce the price of admission for the patron. We should always have that point in mind.

Mr. Diamond: If the hon. Member will permit me to interrupt him very briefly, although he and I are both out of order, he is utterly wrong about this.

Mr. Mawby: The hon. Member is far better versed in the trade than I am, but I have always imagined that the tax was levied upon the patron in accordance with the price of the seat which he occupied.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I hope that the hon. Member will not pursue that point.

Mr. Mawby: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I said at the beginning that I would tread gingerly in order not to be out of order. This shows the great

danger which faces an hon. Member when he is drawn into these arguments.
The hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) was concerned—I do not think very greatly—about the small cinema in the small market town, which, under the Bill, would have the opportunity to show American western films and the lowest possible type of foreign films. That is true, but my experience of the small cinemas is that they try to obtain a type of film which will satisfy the people who attend. I do not think that this will mean that all the small cinemas which are outside the restrictions will decide not to show at least a certain number of British films.
That is all I can say about the Bill, except to follow one point made by the hon. Lady about the number of times there is a reference in the Clauses by which citizens of the Republic of Eire are treated in exactly the same way as citizens of this country. In particular, I should like to know why it is that in each Clause where it deals with a British subject the Bill adds
or citizen of the Republic of Ireland".
I well remember in the debate yesterday that there was a reference to action by the Republic of Ireland which was completely against the interest of all the citizens of the United Kingdom. I should like to know why we should always include a
citizen of the Republic of Ireland
together with
a British subject

5.9 p.m.

Sir Leslie Plummer: The hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby) will not be surprised when I say that I do not quite share the enthusiasm which he expressed for the quality of British pictures. I think that the British film industry produces as many "stinkers" in proportion to the number of films it produces as the Americans do. While there have been some exceptionally good films produced in this country, I do not think that the industry is entitled to dine out on its few successes and claim that it is beyond criticism. A very great deal of criticism can be levelled against it. The hon. Member is wrong in saying that British film producers are not producing quite unpleasant pictures. There are some


horror films coming out of Wardour Street and British studios which I would have preferred were made in Hollywood or in some other country. They are no credit to the British film industry.
The hon. Member for Totnes will not think it odd that I should be at odds with him. What is infinitely more important is that I am at odds with my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond), because I have the greatest respect for my hon. Friend's energy, industry and application. It hurts me very much indeed to have to say that I totally disagree with him on the question of newsreels. I do not believe that newsreels represent the British way of life.
When I think of a newsreel, what comes into my mind is a flash of a race meeting, then a dog doing tricks with a trumpet, then someone presenting some colours to some regiment, and then a battle of flowers in Miami, and that is about all. As for representing the British way of life, it does not compare with the newsreels produced by the B.B.C. or I.T.N. I cannot imagine why anyone should think that this conglomeration of stale, flaccid nonsense, which is what the newsreels have been producing in the last few years, is something which we want to perpetuate and send abroad as a representation of the eager and vital interests of the British way of life.
Newsreels were in great difficulty even before commercial television came along. They were dull, late and dreary. They were no longer commercial propositions. The final knock-out blow was delivered to them by the Government when they introduced commercial television and so brought into existence I.T.N. The Government are rather like a. man who lends a club to someone else to go to beat up a third person and then goes round to the third person's family making a levy to pay the man's hospital bills. The Government are responsible for the parlous position in which the newsreel companies find themselves.
The President of the Board of Trade in introducing the Bill this afternoon made some play of the fact that the newsreels were suffering from competition. We know that the competition is that of television. I wish that the right

hon. Gentleman had shown the same sympathy for some of the periodicals, like Picture Post and Illustrated, which suffered from the competition of television and went out of existence. They represented the British way of life infinitely more clearly and carefully than do the newsreels. At that time the Government had no concern for those victims of commercial television.
Let us consider what will happen if the Bill goes through in its present form and Clause 2 stands and newsreels are brought in for the purpose of quota and levy. The two newsreels now being produced in this country are Pathé, which is produced by the Associated British Picture Corporation, and Fox Movietone News, which is not a very distinguished or widely circulated newsreel. Pathé newsreels to a very large extent go into the cinemas of the Associated British Picture Corporation; they are made primarily for that Corporation. Therefore, Associated British Picture Corporation as a newsreel producer acts as producer, wholesaler and retailer; that is to say, it produces newsreels, it wholesales them to people outside its own circuit and it retails them within its own circuit. But Associated British Picture Corporation also has a controlling interest in a television programme company and, by virtue of its interest in that programme company, it has an interest in I.T.N., which is a competitor of the newsreels.
The general film industry is to have part of the levy taken away from it to give to a newsreel which is being produced by a television programme owning-company which is in competition with the news-reels. That is ridiculous. It is not as though it is necessary because Associated British Picture Corporation is a poor struggling company. On its £4 million worth of ordinary capital it paid an interim dividend for the year 1958–59 of 20 per cent. It is a vast company, making vast profits. There is absolutely no necessity for the Government now to be tender in their attitude to that company and say to it, "So that you may run this newsreel, which you run for your own profit, we will now allow you to make some money out of the general film industry, which is being materially hurt by your own actions through your own television company".
If there is a case for the newsreel as we know it today, there is a case for giving a quota and a levy to all the documentary films produced. The newsreel, as it is being produced today, is very largely a documentary and becomes less and less a real newsreel. If the President of the Board of Trade is correct in saying that it is necessary for us to have newsreels to represent the British way of life abroad, what is the matter with taking the newsreels from I.T.N.? What is the matter with taking "Tonight", which is a magnificent daily programme of contemporary comment on what is going on, produced by the B.B.C? "Tonight" is an outstanding form of the modern newsreel as compared with the old-fashioned one. I should have thought that the I.T.N. newsreels, the B.B.C. news programmes and "Tonight" would find a ready response abroad and would indeed be of very considerable interest to those members of Her Majesty's Forces who are stationed abroad and want to know what is going on in this country.
Furthermore, if it is necessary to have a newsreel for the purpose of showing the British way of life, I should have thought that it would be just as well if the Government revived the old Crown Film Unit, which did so much in the way of producing films for this country. It was a great credit to the country and truly and properly represented it.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) said, Clause 2 will go through a good deal of scrutiny in Committee. I am opposed to it for some of the reasons which I have just advanced. It is wrong that we should be levying the whole industry in the interests of practically one producing company, namely, Associated British Picture Corporation, which has sufficient resources financially and sufficient resources in its outlets in the great chain of cinemas which it owns to take good care of itself. It should not, therefore, be benefited in the way suggested in Clause 2.

5.18 p.m.

Colonel Sir Leonard Ropner: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer) began by making disparaging remarks about British films. If he thinks that it is so

easy to make a film which will be good box office, why does he not go and make one himself? It is a very profitable occupation if it is a really good film.

Sir L. Plummer: Because I have not the money, the talent, the experience, nor the wish to make a film, no more than I want to go into the shipbuilding industry tomorrow, and build a ship. I would not know how to do it, nor how to run it. "Each man to his last" is a good motto to remember.

Sir L. Ropner: I accept everything which the hon. Member has just said; in admitting his ignorance of the difficulties, I suggest to him that he should be rather more careful in his criticism of those firms which, whenever they start producing a film, think and certainly hope that it will be good box office. But it just does not happen that way. The hon. Member may be interested to learn, in view of what he has said, that in a very recent popularity poll seven out of the best ten films shown in this country over the period of a year were British films. That is a fairly creditable performance on the part of those responsible for the production of films in this country.
I must acknowledge a personal interest in the film industry. I should also like to preface my remarks by apologising to the hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White), whose speech I was sorry to miss. I had an important meeting upstairs. I am quite sure that the hon. Lady dealt with the industry very fairly—she always does—and with great knowledge. I am truly sorry that I missed her remarks.
The point of view of the film industry is that this Bill is non-controversial and welcome. I am glad that in framing it, my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has incorporated a number of suggestions which were submitted to him by trade organisations such as the Cinematograph Exhibitors' Association and the British Film Producers' Association. The Bill not only extends the film quota legislation until 1967, but it takes into account certain changed circumstances which have arisen since 1948.
I am, however, bound to add that the provisions of the Bill may become purely academic unless something more can be done for the film industry. Only a


moment ago, I spoke about changed circumstances. For the industry as a whole, the change which has brought about really savage difficulties has been the calamitous fall in box office receipts. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade gave two sets of figures. I always hesitate to give figures in debates, but I should like to amplify what my right hon. Friend said by means of a few additional figures.
In 1946, the number of seats sold was 1,600 million. In 1956, it had already dropped to 1,100 million; in 1957, to 915 million, and in 1958, to 754 million. Already in 1959, the number of tickets sold has fallen by 74 million in the first six months of the year. The industry is bound to conclude that attendances throughout the present year will not be much in excess of 600 million. A fall of from 1,600 million to 600 million causes extreme difficulties to all sections of the film industry.
During the whole period for which I have given figures, the film industry has been paying considerable sums in Entertainments Duty. The incidence of that duty has been reduced and there was a substantial concession this year, but the benefit of that concession has already been lost by the fall in admissions.
I want to make a suggestion which, I hope, will keep my last few remarks on the Bill in order. Perhaps, even at this late stage, the President of the Board of Trade, in consultation with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, might add a single Clause to the Bill to abolish the Entertainments Duty. If my right hon. Friend feels that that is outside the provisions of the Bill, I hope that at least we may get an assurance today that in next year's Budget the Entertainments Duty will be abolished.

5.24 p.m.

Mr. John Rankin: I agree thoroughly with what the hon. and gallant Member for Barkston Ash (Sir L. Ropner) has just said about the abolition of cinema tax. Whatever might happen after that would largely cease to be our business; we would have thrown the industry back on its own resources. That is one of the steps that should be taken, and taken immediately.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: We cannot pursue that any further on this Bill tonight.

Mr. Rankin: I assure you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that I did not intend to pursue it. I was merely tempted, as hon. Members have been tempted before, to follow the remarks which have come from the Government side.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I take it that the hon. Member was making only a passing reference.

Mr. Rankin: My reference, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, has now passed. While my reference has passed, I trust that it is still in order to say that my hope remains.
In the first day of the debate on the Gracious Speech, on Tuesday of last week, I deplored the fact that there was no reference whatever in the Speech to the need for quota legislation. I do not know whether the Government noticed that omission, but 48 hours afterwards the Cinematograph Films Bill appeared at the Vote Office. I will not be so bold as to relate those two happenings, but I hope that what I said on that occasion not only merited, but received, attention from the Government. It is an indication that the interest in this great industry is a continuing one in this Parliament.
In the last Parliament, we debated the industry on many occasions. I think that it will be agreed that on both sides, those who participated and those who listened were equally interested. It may have been that on occasion the support from Members on the Government side was somewhat muted. Nevertheless, being generous, we are willing to believe that they realised with us that the film industry required help from Parliament. I have already indicated the one great source from which that help may come.
When I got a copy of the Bill at the Vote Office, and looked through it, one point that struck me forcibly was the repeated references to the Acts of 1938 and 1948, with one little reference to the Act of 1957. On almost every page of the Bill, starting at the Title, we are taken back to 1938 and 1948, and this continues right to the end. All that is necessary, but it involves enormous


labour for the Member who seeks to study the Bill.
I turned to a volume containing the 1938 Act, to keep in touch with what had been done by those who have preceded me in this House, and I came across this astonishing statement in that Act, dated 30th March, 1938:
Subject to the provisions of section 5 of the Cinematograph Films Act, 1948 …
In the Act of 1938 we are referred to the Act of 1948. I have heard, of course, of legislation by reference, but, so far, I have never heard of legislation by prevision. I do not know whether that is a usual feature of Acts of Parliament. Then, when I look at the bottom of the page I find that the Clause is excluded altogether and I am referred to 11 and 12 Geo. VI, Chapter 23, Section 5.
That kind of thing goes on in this sort of Bill. I do not mean that there are other references to Measures which have not yet reached the Statute Book, but there are all these changes, some of which are written in handwriting which—and I am not in any way criticising the person who wrote them in—is rather difficult to follow.
I have also studied Clause 25 of the Bill, which contains some sort of reference to the Act of 1957. But as far as I can remember, and I took a fairly active part in the passing of that Bill, I do not recollect anything that modified Clause 25 which deals with a point that has already been raised by one or two hon. Members on both sides of the House, namely, the definition of what is a British film.
On page 649 the Act starts to define a British film—what we mean by a British film is set out in the middle of the page—and the definition finishes completely on page 651. Therefore, if we are to define what was meant by a British film we have to read one page, another half page and another bit of a succeeding page. When we come to the 1948 Act we find that, instead of the Schedules being there for our ready and immediate information, we are referred to other Acts and that the Schedules appear in two small paragraphs.
I suggest to the Government—and I hope that they will take note of it—that the time is now ripe, if not over-ripe,

for a consolidation Measure so that all these Sections, all the Schedules and all the modifications will be contained within one Act in order that hon. Members may be saved the great amount of labour involved in trying to follow the innumerable references made in the Bill to previous Acts.
I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary will appreciate that the ordinary Member has not a Government Department behind him. He has not an organisation which he can consult. He has to do the job for himself, and it is not in any way an easy job to tackle along with the innumerable duties that fall to him as a Member of Parliament.
Coming to the Bill itself, I am in a little difficulty, because much of what I intended to say has already been said, and probably much better than I shall say it. Nevertheless, I remember a story which was told to me by a former Member of the House. He was a very strong supporter of the Government, but, despite this disqualification, I paid attention to what he said. He is now a Member of another place.
When I first same to the House and listened to hon. Members saying all the things that I had carefully prepared, I was terrified to get up and say the same things. I was speaking to this former Member one day and he said to me, "Do not bother about that. The business of this House is for the maximum number of people to get up and say the same things to the Government, because it is only when the Government see that there is a great pressure coming from several quarters to get them to do one or two things that the Government begin to respond."
It was for that reason that some of us today mentioned the abolition of the cinema tax which, of course, we can only mention in passing. Nevertheless, the more people who say that, the greater, perhaps, will be the chance of our getting the reward of our endeavours.
I want now to examine the point, which, of course, has attracted so much attention, of bringing newsreels within the scope of quota legislation. I welcome that, but, again, I think it is typical of the Government that they should be doing something which may be worth while but are doing it, as usual, too late.


That is because, as has been said, there are now only two newsreels being shown, British Movietone and Pathé.
The fact remains that the newsreels are being killed by television. If one has sat comfortably in one's own home on a Thursday night, and seen all the news offered by television, then, obviously, one will not go to the cinema on the following Monday to see again what was seen on the previous Thursday.
One of the great circuits has decided to substitute for the newsreel a programme called "Looking at Life". During the ten minutes or so that this programme lasts they can show a film of immediate interest and importance, dealing, perhaps, roughly and quickly with the laying down of a great liner, its launching and the sort of work that goes into its building. That is something which I think is really worth seeing.
The other point that strikes me is that the President of the Board of Trade is making rather a strange demonstration today. He is showing a great interest in saving what, in fact, are the remnants of one small part of the exhibitors' world whereas hitherto he has shown very little interest in that world itself. If the right hon. Gentleman recognises the need to help the remnants of the newsreels, why not abolish the tax which is all too quickly helping to destroy the industry itself? The right hon. Gentleman may say, of course, that that is not his immediate duty. That is probably true, but he is still concerned with it. It is his business to take to the Chancellor a message which comes not from just this side of the House, but from both sides.
It looks almost as if today we are solemnly laying down the percentage of films that must be shown in United Kingdom cinemas, when every day more and more cinemas are being closed, so that there is less chance of the quota being shown. The Government appear to be doing two things which are diametrically opposed. While there is the Marxian synthesis which derives from the conflict of opposites, one cannot see any synthesis emerging from a policy that imposes a quota to encourage more films to be shown and retains a tax which helps to show fewer films. In continuing that quota system and at the

same time continuing the tax, the Government are failing to produce the harmony that we all want to see not only in the industry but in this House.
My hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) said that if the news-reels were being brought within the ambit of the levy and of the quota, that meant that another consumer was being introduced into the production pool. If there is a greater demand on that pool it seems to me that we shall handicap the production of the first feature film which I regard as one of the essentials in British film production. It may be that the President of the Board of Trade has a concise answer to that point, but I fail to see how, if he is introducing another consumer, he can avoid limiting the amount of money which goes to the producers of first feature films.
I should like to ask a question at this stage. If the levy and the quota are to apply to newsreels, will producers be required to show their films at trade shows? That is a recognised policy. I understand that they are not to be required to do so, but that they will get the benefit without the requirement.
I come to Clause 8, which, I think, has not been mentioned in this debate so far. This Clause provides that for a film to qualify as British, every person engaged in its making as a producer or director, except one, must be a British subject or a citizen of the Republic of Ireland, or ordinarily resident in the Commonwealth or the Republic of Ireland. One hon. Member opposite seemed to have some objection to that, but, of course, the citizens of the Irish Republic have dual citizenship and therefore enjoy the benefits of this Clause.
Suppose, however, that the executive producer and the executive director were the same person—which can happen. Would he come under the exception, as the one person who would be exempted from the provisions of this Clause? Would he be the excepted person? If so, it could be that the producer and the director would be a person who did not hold British citizenship at all.
May I say a word about Clause 9, which deals with the nomenclatures of the makers of British films? The Clause is rather long-winded. Why should a British film be obliged to state the place


where it was made and the name of the person who made it, which may not convey a great deal to an audience? Why should it not say, wherever it is shown, "This is a British film"? What is the objection to that?
I think that I have said all that is necessary at the moment. [Interruption.] There are mutterings on the benches opposite below the Gangway. I do not know what they are, but if they are pertinent and helpful in any way it would be much better if they were delivered in a tone that was audible to me at least. In view of the fact that they merely confine themselves to mutterings, perhaps I may terminate my speech by saying that since the exhibiting and production sides of the industry welcome the Bill, with certain criticisms, I, like others here who are interested in the health of this great industry, but not financially interested in any way, offer a welcome to it, also.

5.48 p.m.

Mr. A. E. Cooper: I suppose that during the last Parliament—and it looks almost as if it will apply to this Parliament also—there has probably been no industry which has had so much Parliamentary time devoted to it as the film industry. There is probably no other industry which makes such a small contribution to our national economy as does the film industry.
I find myself at variance with the speeches of my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby) and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Barkston Ash (Sir L. Ropner), and very much in support of the speech of the hon. Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer). This Bill, according to the Explanatory Memorandum, has as one of its main purposes
to amend the film quota legislation (… to show a certain proportion of British films) and to extend it until the end of 1967.
It is unfortunate that at this time we still have legislation which provides that the cinemas of this country must show a certain proportion of films produced in this country. We must be quite clear on what, in fact, we are doing. By this Bill we are carrying on the tradition that a quantity of films must be shown, but not a quality of films. The fact that we have insisted over the years on this quota

system and have at the same time produced films of such a low standard is one of the prime reasons why the British film industry is in such a bad state today.

Mr. Stephen Swingler: This is really a very important point. Is the hon. Member saying that the British film industry produces a higher proportion of trash than does Hollywood?

Mr. Cooper: At this stage of the argument I am not dealing with Hollywood at all. This Bill relates to the British film industry.

Mr. Swingler: rose—

Mr. Cooper: May I continue? Perhaps I shall be able to deal with the point made by the hon. Member as I go along.
It has been a cardinal point in the argument put forward by the British film industry for a long time that the tax position has been one of the factors which has caused the closing of small cinemas up and down the country. I, for one, do not believe that there is any substance whatever in that argument.
Take my own constituency. For some months past cinemas in Ilford have been exhibiting to very small audiences indeed, but a week or two ago there was a re-showing of the film "Genevieve": the cinema was packed at every performance and many people were turned away. That is simply a confirmation of a very old business saying, "Rolls Royce will never go bankrupt". In other words, if one produces a quality article people will buy it. The people in this country today, by virtue of an increasing and rising standard of living, have motor cars but they did not have cars before the war. They have television sets and a number of other ways in which they can spend their money. They are selective in the way they spend money on entertainment. If the British film industry persists in producing unmitigated "tripe" the cinema-goer will no longer be a cinema-goer, but will seek other ways and means of spending his money.
We really must face the fact that the cinema industry in this country has for years lavished money on films of poor quality, and has paid starlets and stars salaries far in excess of their ability to


achieve, with the result that we have a lack of quality in films, and people, quite understandably, will not go to see them.

Mr. John Hall: I have been slightly agreeing with my hon. Friend, especially on matters on Which he is an acknowledged expert, but is he really telling the House that the percentage of first-class films produced by British studios is less than that of those produced by American studios? I, for one, do not believe that.

Mr. Cooper: I am not saying anything of the sort. I again say to my hon. Friend, and other hon. Friends, that I am simply discussing the British film industry. If he wants to know my views on the American film industry, they are even more caustic than they are on our own industry, but that is no justification for us to go on, year after year, pandering to the British film industry which, quite frankly, is not doing a good job. Let us face it. An American film has been thrown on to an unsuspecting public in the present week. It was referred to in the Sunday Express in, I thought, quite proper language, as "a stinking awful film". Apparently more money has been spent on that film than on any other in history, but, simply because Hollywood and American producers do a thoroughly bad job, that is no reason why we in this country should go on doing a bad job also.

Mr. John Hall: Would my hon. Friend also agree that this "stinking awful film" will probably get a better showing throughout the cinemas of this country than would a good British film?

Mr. Cooper: I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. The reason is that it has the one element which will always attract people in this country—sex. The low-cut neckline will always attract the film-goer in this country. For that reason such films will pack the cinemas, but that does not get away from the fact that it is a thoroughly bad film. What I am trying to get over, perhaps with great difficulty, is that whenever in this country the Boulting Brothers produce a film, that film sells and packs the cinemas all over the country, tax or no tax.
All I am saying to the House and to the film industry of this country is simply

that we should say, "Yes, we will give you this extra support for which you are now asking in view of the difficult situation in which you are faced, but it is high time that you as an industry set about producing a high quality product. If you will produce a high quality product, then the highly selective public of this country will buy that product, but so long as you go on producing rubbish as you have over the years"—

Mr. Hirst: It is not true.

Mr. Cooper: —"you can only look forward to an industry which will end in bankruptcy."

5.58 p.m.

Mr. Stephen Swingler: I wish that the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Cooper) was right in anything he said, but the fact is that he is quite wrong. Apparently, he does not even know why the quota system was introduced. He argues about a film dealing with the quota as if it could have no regard to Hollywood at all.
To take one point that the hon. Member mentioned, he said that admissions to cinemas had fallen off because of the declining quality of British films. I could produce plenty of evidence that during the last couple of years, when there has been this very striking drop in cinema admissions, there has been a very substantial and significant improvement in the quality of British films and a substantial number of good quality British films. We know that the drop in cinema attendances has had to do with another factor, the wide spread of television. That has nothing to do with the quota, but it is an important factor.
Why was the quota system introduced? If I remember rightly, it was introduced as a result of a resolution passed at an Imperial Conference. The reason for the resolution was that if the quota had not been introduced in Britain thirty years ago there would have been a complete Americanisation of the British cinema. That would have been inevitable, because Hollywood was first in the field and American cinema capitalism had a head start. It had the advantage of a vast domestic market. Having the advantage of sharing a language—as they say


—to some extent any way, with the United Kingdom, it could make a profit on American film production in the United States market and afford to sell at a loss in the British market. That has been going on ever since. That is the reason for a quota system. It was quite impossible to have a British film industry and cinema trade which could ever compete on equal terms with that of the United States. That has been the position for thirty years and is still so today.
We have to recognise that, however greatly the quality of British films may improve, they will still always be at a great economic disadvantage compared with films produced in the United States, because our producers cannot so easily break into the vast United States market and collect the enormous profits which can be made in that market while using other markets overseas as a mere excrescence in the promotion of their business.
For that reason, therefore, I welcome the Bill, although very moderately, and support the continuance of the quota system for the simple reason that I do not see any alternative. I also welcome the fact that the Government think that there are more important considerations than merely commercial ones in relation to the cinema trade and the film industry. The significant part of the Bill is the recognition of the fact that, in relation to the production of cinematograph films and the continuance of the cinema, there are national and social considerations in some cases more important than commercial ones. As I have said, if the cinema trade were run purely according to the unrestricted laws of supply and demand and profit motive the film industry would collapse and we should have a complete Americanisation of the cinema trade.
The Bill is a recognition of the fact that the State should interfere so that there shall be a British film industry and that a certain quota of British films shall be shown even though it means that some exhibitors will have to pay a bit more for the films that they are under the law compelled to exhibit.

Mr. Cooper: I must make it clear that all that I am saying is that the provision of a quota does not mean that

the filmgoer must go to see certain films if the quality is bad.

Mr. Swingler: That has always been the case. We cannot pass legislation to govern the number of admissions to the cinemas. We can only ensure that a modest proportion of what those who wish to go to the cinema see is the result of British talent and production, so that purely commercial considerations shall not exclude British film productions entirely from British cinemas, which, without the quota system, those in a position to get films on the cheap might well do. We can neither determine the quality of the films produced nor whether customers will go to see them. That is a matter of judgment for those within the film producing industry and those responsible for exhibition.
We should not be proud that after thirty years of the film quota system only—and I emphasise the word "only"—35 per cent. of the films shown in British cinemas are British. One of the things which this proves is that a quota system as such is just not enough. It is a very blunt instrument unless, at the same time, there is a dynamic policy for expanding the production of films and for tapping the talent which exists in the country for the artistic and technical creation of films. Thirty-five per cent. is still a very meagre proportion. The fact that we are still dependent to the extent of 65 per cent. on foreign films, after all the legislation to which reference has been made this evening, is a rather poor result.
As I say, I think that the quota system, although still inevitable because we have not discovered an alternative, is a very blunt instrument, but there are two things that I want to say about it, as it reappears with some amendment in the Bill. I do not want to go into a lot of detail with which we shall trouble the Parliamentary Secretary at some length in Committee, but there are two things that I want to say about the characteristic of the quota system. If we are to have the quota system, I want it to be, first, 100 per cent. British, and, secondly, 100 per cent. workable and effective.
There is no case for it otherwise. It would be better not to have one at all. If we are to have a quota system, especially in a diminishing market


caused by people being attracted away from the cinema to other forms of entertainment, let it be a quota for genuinely British productions. As the President of the Board of Trade admits, we are still leaving 65 per cent. of the market to foreigners.
I welcome the stiffening-up in the Bill of the definitions of a British film. That is a good thing, but there are one or two other things which need to be attended to. One of the problems is that the definition of the word "British" covers the Commonwealth, and I think that it is a good thing under the British film quota system to encourage the exhibition in Britain of films produced within the Commonwealth. However, it is only fair that if this is done, which, after all, is something for the encouragement of the Australian or Indian film producer as well as the British, we should make our best endeavours to arrive at reciprocal arrangements about the exhibition of films in the Commonwealth. If there is to be an advantage given, as there is an advantage given under the British quota system, to promote the production of films in the Commonwealth, we should try to promote reciprocal arrangement for the encouragement of the exhibition of British Commonwealth pictures in the whole of the Commonwealth area.
In the same way, I accept that co-production is a good thing from the point of view of the flourishing of the film industry in the world in general, and from the point of view of pooling talent technically and artistically we should encourage it. I welcome very much the arrangements made by producers on Anglo-French and Anglo-Italian productions. This is an excellent thing. It is good that the Bill makes a move towards providing for that within the quota system, but again I think that it should be on a strictly reciprocal basis. If we promote a production which is half Italian in the British market, similar endeavours should be made by the Italians to promote films which are half British in their market.
I said that I should like a quota system which is 100 per cent. British with the qualifications that I have mentioned. The second thing that I want is a quota system which is effective. When one looks back over the history of the film quota system as it has been in operation

over the last thirty years, particularly over the last ten, we must admit that it has not been really effective and workable in very many ways. For instance, how many people have been prosecuted for default under the quota system? The number is negligible compared with the number of people who have not fulfilled their quota obligations. Of the cinemas in this country which, year after year, have never shown a British picture, only about 10 per cent. of them have been prosecuted. This is because the Board of Trade know that if they take defaulters to the courts—and the Board has had its fingers burned a few times in this matter—there is always the get-out, "It was not commercially practicable this year to show 25 or 30 per cent. British films." There are even some cinemas in Leicester Square which do not show their quota of British films.
We should have had two or three levels of quota, not one. The thing that makes the system so blunt and ineffective is having one quota to apply to the circuits and to the back-street cinema, which, of course, is crazy. We cannot expect back-street cinemas, competing to get films with the circuits, to show their quota of British films. What happens is that they get exemptions. If they cannot do it, they default; and if that happens they are not prosecuted, because they can plead that it is not commercially practicable.
We should examine that side of the business very carefully. The quota system has been maintaining the level of British film production, and that is good. Certainly, over the years, it has kept up a certain level of exhibition of British films in British cinemas. That has been a good thing, too. But the President of the Board of Trade could not really say that it has been an effectively enforceable system—because of all the modifications that have had to be made. We ought to see whether we cannot devise a more practicable system.
One of the things that we should examine while discussing the Bill is the representation of film producers on the Cinematograph Films Council. I have spoken of quota defaults. It is one of the responsibilities of the Council to advise the Minister on those, and to advise him on the quota level, and


so on. I have never been satisfied about producer representation on the Council. I do not, of course, make any reflection on any of the very distinguished persons—including some distinguished Members of this House—who have served on it, but the producer representation has not been strong enough because many of those on the Council as alleged producer representatives have had much more powerful and attractive exhibition interests. We should ensure that those who are supposed to be representative of production really do have the interests of film producers deeply at heart. I hope that we may strengthen that representation.
The circumstances mentioned by some of my hon. Friends have been created in very small part by the tax, but in very great part by the competition of television. Incidentally, there is no British quota in regard to television. That is one of its great deficiencies, and we should do something about it. With a diminishing cinema market, it is quite clear that unless, combined with the quota system, there is a positive Government policy to expand British film production, it can all mean very little.
Unless really positive aid and stimulus is given by the Board of Trade to enable independent producers and others to raise the quality and increase the variety of the films produced, there is resistance from the exhibitors to fulfil the quota, and the result of the quota is then to "freeze" the level of British films being shown in the cinema. Therefore, unless public enterprise is shown by the Government positively to encourage British film production, the quota will remain a very blunt instrument.

6.14 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. John Rodgers): I am sure that everyone in the House will agree that we have had an interesting and a most useful debate on what my right hon. Friend described as a modest but important Bill. The debate has allowed us to review the general health of the British film industry, and it is against the background of the state of the industry's progress that we should judge this modest Measure.
The purpose of the Bill is simply to extend and improve the quota arrange-

ments, but I am quite sure that, as the hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) warned me, we shall have a very much more active time in Committee than, perhaps, we have had this afternoon, and that there will probably be many more points of difference between us there than have been obvious during our present discussion.
The debate has shown the concern of both sides of the House for our film industry. It is an industry which the more one studies it the more one recognises that it presents unusual and very specialised problems not common to many industries. Nevertheless, as my right hon. Friend pointed out, it is surprising and curious that the halving of cinema attendances since the war has produced no corresponding diminution in production. That is an extraordinary thing. There can be few other British industries that, with their domestic market halved, would find themselves in such a position.
At the Board of Trade, we do not know—and I am sure that hon. Members on either side would not like to foretell—what the industry's future holds. It may well be that rather fewer films will be made, but more complicated and expensive ones, to be shown for longer periods. Up to now, however, it is true to say that British film production has kept up remarkably well.
As my right hon. Friend said, it is gratifying that British films should have acquired a bigger share of a declining market—it was over 35 per cent. up to 30th September, 1958, the last quota year for which details are available—and that they have made notable headway in overseas markets, too; particularly in the European markets. There are a lot of Jeremiahs, some in this House, who have forecast a cessation of British film production, and have spoken of the inadequacies of Government action to assist production. To date, I think that these Jeremiahs have, on the whole, been confounded.
In my view—although I realise that I can be challenged on this—Government help to the film production industry has been fully adequate. Of course, we could have done more for producers. Of course, we could have risked more public money. But we believe that we have provided just enough support to


give producers the courage to fight for their markets. This they have done most successfully and, frankly, I would congratulate them on their success to date—

Mr. Jay: While the hon. Gentleman is on that aspect, perhaps he would also pay tribute to the National Film Finance Corporation for the part that it has played.

Mr. Rodgers: I had intended to refer to the Corporation a little later. I thought that the hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East, hinted that there were difficulties in the way in which the National Film Finance Corporation was now operated; that it was, perhaps, becoming a little too tough in its lending policy as a result of the duty imposed on it in the 1957 Act to pay its way.
Frankly, I am quite unrepentant. I am glad the Corporation is paying special attention to the need to spend the taxpayers' money wisely and prudently. It is important that every reasonable care should be taken of public money, particularly in such a speculative industry as the film industry. The impression is sometimes given that the Corporation has reduced the scope of its activities, but this is really not the case.
The loans approved by the Corporation in the two years since the 1957 Act was passed have been at a rate higher than that in any other previous year, with the exception of the year in which very large sums were lent to the old British Lion Film Corporation—sums, it will be recalled, that were lost when the company was re-formed in January, 1955. The loans made by the National Film Finance Corporation in the first seven months of this year, for example, are at an average about that in each of the last nine years.
While on the subject of the Corporation, I am glad to inform the House that there has been an encouraging response in some quarters to the Corporation's call to the industry to get costs down by reducing the very high cash salaries that it was the custom to pay to some individuals, and giving them, instead, a share of the profits.
I should like now to turn for a moment to the exhibition side of the industry. The attention of the House has been drawn by speeches from both sides

to the unfortunate situation in which a number of cinemas find themselves. This point was particularly underlined by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Barkston Ash (Sir L. Ropner). The fact remains, however, that the fall in attendances is not a matter for which this or any other Government can take responsibility. Basically, it is the result of the change in public taste for the cinema.
I do not, in saying that, seek for one moment to minimise the severity of the blow to some exhibitors. However, the Government, while not being able to stem the decline in attendance, have nevertheless paid very special attention to the needs of the smaller exhibitors, both in the method chosen for reducing the Entertainments Duty this year, and in the present Bill by relieving the cinemas from quota obligations whose average takings are less than £125 per week.
Practically 80 per cent. to 90 per cent. of the speeches today referred to the Entertainments Duty. I am sure that hon. Members will not expect me to guess at or in any way anticipate my right hon. Friend's Budget.

Mr. Jay: But when the previous President of the Board of Trade did that, does not the hon. Gentleman remember that the present Prime Minister said that he was quite right? Why cannot the hon. Gentleman follow that example?

Mr. Rodgers: I also remember, as the Prime Minister pointed out, that the Opposition created a good deal of fuss about this alleged leakage of a Budget secret. I have no intention of following that precedent today. I am quite certain that the Chancellor will observe what has been said in this debate. What effect it will have on his decisions I should not like to say at all.
About 900 cinemas are expected to gain exemption by the alterations in this Bill. Special attention is paid to these cinemas in collection of the levy. I hope that the hon. Lady is wrong in thinking that this will necessarily lead to smaller cinemas having a spate of horror films, Westerns and American films in general. One must, I think, keep the importance of these small cinemas to the trade as a whole in perspective. Some producers might well feel alarmed that so many as 900 cinemas were to be relieved of quota


obligations, but the fact is, as I think the hon. Lady knows, that if these cinemas stopped showing British films altogether the loss to British producers would be less than 2 per cent. of their total earnings.
Despite closures of cinemas and the continuing fall in attendance the main groups of cinemas which provide the bulk of producers with revenue have not done so badly, as a result of the reduction in Entertainments Duty. I will quote the figures. Although gross takings of cinemas in 1958 were £95 million less than in the preceding year the amount of Entertainments Duty paid was £12·2 million less. After allowing for an increase in the rate of levy that left net takings £1·9 million higher than in 1957.
Clearly, the fact that about 900 cinemas can be relieved from quota obligation is really a tribute to the strength of British films. A few years ago these cinemas might well have complained at being forced to take British films. Today, their main complaint is not at being forced to take British films, but that they cannot get enough of them. This does not in any sense mean that we can do without the quota, although I realise that this is not a point which will commend itself to my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Cooper), who seemed alone in querying the necessity for the continuation of the film quota.
We must not lose sight of the fact that cinemas still depend on American films for the majority of their programmes, and I think that the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Swingler) was quite right in saying that we depend at the moment on the quota for the fact is that about twice as many American films are shown in the cinemas than British films. This quota legislation does afford protection against high pressure salesmanship in various ways such as the prohibition of blind and advance bookings under the 1938 Act. Furthermore, the very existence of the quota does ensure that all but the most hopeless failures will get some showing in the United Kingdom, and this provides that additional confidence without which it would be difficult for some film producers to raise the necessary finance.

This aspect has not been touched on in the debate, but it is one of the most important reasons for continuation of the film quota.
I think that it is true to say that hon. Members on both sides of the House will agree with me that there is no real support for the abolition of the quota. As I say, I except my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South, but, apart from him, everybody does agree that we need continuation of the present legislation. On the whole, the Bill has been welcomed, and it has been thought that it is an improvement on existing arrangements with regard to the quota.
Not unnaturally, the Clauses which have attracted most attention in the speeches of hon. Members are those relating to the innovation of quota protection for newsreels and the provision enabling co-produced films to be made with foreign producers. There is no doubt about it, as the hon. Lady said, that the demand for newsreels has been very much affected by the coming of television, and it is a fact that three news-reel companies have closed in the last year or two and that there are now only two companies left, as the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) mentioned.
I hope that the film producers will be magnanimous enough and sufficiently statesmanlike not to oppose the drain which they think this will make on the levy fund. All that the Bill proposes is to give the same right to newsreels as is given to other films. Why should we discriminate against them because some members of the public prefer TV? The producers are not subsidising news-reels. They are merely giving the news-reels the same advantages which have hitherto been granted to feature films. Therefore, I think that we really are adjusting the balance rather than robbing feature film producers.

Sir L. Plummer: But surely the whole purpose of the Bill is to give protection to the needy, that is to say, give protection to the feature film producer who, in this market as it is constructed, needs help. As I tried to show in my speech, one of the major producers of newsreels in this country does not need protection of this kind—not financial assistance, at any rate.

Mr. Rodgers: I do not want to be drawn into a debate on which section of the film industry needs aid more than others, but it is a fact that the so-called drain which would be the result of the inclusion of newsreels into the quota arrangements is from £150,000 to £200,000 a year. One would hardly call this much a depletion, and it is less than the amount by which the levy rose last year, so that I think that if we take all the factors into account the hon. Lady's argument that film producers are likely to lose a great deal by the inclusion of newsreels in the quota arrangements cannot be sustained.

Mrs. White: Will the newsreels qualify for two-and-a-half times the levy?

Mr. Rodgers: I was coming to that point, too, but I will answer it now. I was going to answer it later, in response to the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond). As the Bill is drawn it will give the newsreels the benefit of the two-and-a-half times multiplier.
It has already been pointed out that it would be a mistake to take more than necessary out of the levy fund since this would be at the expense of other film producers. Therefore, it may be wise to introduce a regulation under the 1957 Act reducing help to something less than that which would be given by application of the two-and-half multiplier. I hope that that satisfies the hon. Member for Gloucester and the hon. Lady.
I do think, too that we should not minimise the advantage this country gets in the way of prestige abroad from the presentation of newsreels by foreign exhibitors. The hon. Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer) asked: why did we not take I.T.A. and B.B.C. films? I think that they would be found much more difficult to sell. Another country would be much more reluctant, I think, to take that material than it would commercial films, because the former would be considered to be tainted much more by an official point of view than would ordinary commercial newsreels. This is only a point of view, but I advance it for the consideration of the hon. Member.

Sir L. Plummer: Surely it would not apply to I.T.A. films.

Mr. Rodgers: The hon. Gentleman did not confine his suggestion to the I.T.A.

He mentioned the B.B.C. feature programmes, too.

Sir L. Plummer: But these news features do represent the British way of life. Surely no official stigma is to be attached to B.B.C. television newsreels.

Mr. Rodgers: I should not like to suggest that there was any official stigma attached to either, but there are difficulties and complications in the relations of the cinema film industry and the television industry not only in this country, but in countries abroad. It is, perhaps, more complicated than the hon. Member appreciated when he threw out the suggestion, although I entirely agree about the high qualify of programmes of newsreels produced on both channels of television.
Clause 10 will enable co-production films to be made and to qualify for British quota purposes. It is our intention in the Bill to do no more at this stage than to provide an enabling Clause. I am glad that the hon. Member for Gloucester welcomes this provision. The details of any international agreement made on this subject will have to be negotiated with very great care, but I think that hon. Members will agree that it would have been a great mistake to try to lay down in the Bill the detailed provisions necessary in relation to co-production films.
The sort of thing which the European agreements at present cover are the reciprocal benefits in the two countries which will be given to the co-produced films, the proportion of participation in the film by the various parties, including financial and labour participation; the use of studios, the way in which the films made under the agreements will be exploited in other countries, and so on. They usually provide also for some sort of joint commission to supervise the operation of the agreement.
I would point out that it is the industry itself which has asked for a provision of this sort, and any arrangement made pursuant to the Clause will have to be made after further discussion with the industry. It is obvious that the unions and the exhibitors as well as the producers and distributors will have strong points of view to be taken into acount on the type of agreement to be made. Personally, I welcome the fact that in


the context of a Bill designed to continue to protect a home industry we can find a Clause so far removed from pure protectionism as this. Though there is no doubt that the Cinematograph Films Council will take into consideration the availability of co-production films when advising the Board of Trade, as it is their statutory duty so to do, on the size of the quota, I think that at this stage that is all I can say to the hon. Lady for Flint. East on the point she raised in the course of her remarks.
On the whole, I think that it does great credit to the film industry that it should have put forward this request which accords with a good spirit of competitiveness and export-mindedness. There is no doubt that British films have achieved an international reputation higher than ever before. I was slightly distressed by the remarks of one or two hon. Members about the quality of British films. Instead, I should like to pay my tribute to the perseverance which British film producers have shown in selling their products in the highly competitive markets of the world. The showing of British films in the recent British Film Week in Russia attracted tremendous attention, and Her Majesty's Government welcome the news, announced by the Rank Organisation yesterday, that it has done a deal with Russia for the showing there of four of their most successful feature films.
I shall not have time to comment on all the other points raised in the debate, but doubtless they will be all raised again in Committee. I think that my right hon. Friend adequately gave our views about the renters' quota and pointed out that it was impossible under the arrangement with G.A.T.T. to do anything about that. On labour costs, the hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East asked why the figure was 10s. a square foot.

Mrs. White: Not a square foot.

Mr. Rodgers: I cannot read my handwriting. It is 10s. a foot. She said that owing to the change in money values this should be raised to 15s. or £1, as recommended in certain quarters. There is an argument that can be advanced

on that. Two points should be borne in mind. First, if we did that it would exclude many films that at present enjoy the quota, so I am informed, and it might lead to inflated costs of producing films which would not be to the economic advantage of the industry or of the patrons at cinemas. Therefore, I think that it is better to leave it at 10s.
The point about studios and the question of the inclusion of Commonwealth as well as United Kingdom studios is one which had better be left to the Committee stage. My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Hirst) raised an interesting point on Clause 12 and asked whether there was any danger of a change of title allowing films to qualify twice for the quota. I am glad to assure my hon. Friend that the Bill has been so drafted that there is no danger whatever of a film acquiring an extra period of quota life by being re-registered under a different title.
The hon. Member for Gloucester asked about the two-and-a-half multiplier. I have already dealt with that, and I think that I had better avoid altogether his invitation to me to comment on whether the proceedings of the House should be televised or be put on the newsreels. That is a subject perhaps for another debate, but certainly not one for me to comment on.
My hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby) asked why, throughout the Bill, we had the phrase which refers to the citizens of the Republic of Ireland. They are referred to merely to preserve the status quo. The Cinematograph Films Act, 1938, applied to the citizens of the Republic of Ireland as if they were British because that Act was passed before the Ireland Act, 1949. We are not giving extra privileges to the Irish or to the Republic of Ireland. We are merely preserving the status quo by their inclusion in the Bill.

Mr. Rankin: Oh, I see.

Mr. Rodgers: I do not quite understand the hon. Member's remarks.

Mr. Rankin: The hon. Gentleman will remember, or at least I hope that he remembers, that I raised on Clause 8 the question whether one person—

Mr. Rodgers: I am coming to the hon. Member.

Mr. Rankin: I am sorry.

Mr. Rodgers: I was proceeding in the order in which hon. Members spoke and in the order of the various points raised. I assure the hon. Member that I shall not overlook him. There is also another question which several hon. Members have raised which I shall leave to my closing remarks.
On the question relating to one producer or one director, which was the point that exercised the mind of the hon. Member for Govan, it would mean in that case that it could be a foreigner even though the two persons were "married" so to speak.

Mr. Rankin: This may be something we can talk about later. Could it not be met if the word "and" were substituted for "or"?

Mr. Rodgers: I do not pretend to be a great expert on film production. I do not know whether a film could be made without a producer or without a director, or whether it is necessary to have both, it seems to me that a great many people are involved in the production of films.
Frankly, I think that I have said enough about my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South. Therefore I come now to the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme. I am very glad indeed that he welcomes the Bill and the improved quota provisions. I have also great sympathy with his point of view that the quota should be, as he described it, 100 per cent. British and 100 per cent. workable and effective. That was our desire, and in the Bill we have tightened up the definition of "British" and the labour content and so on. I think that the hon. Member can take satisfaction out of that. We are also pursuing the reciprocal arrangements in the Commonwealth to which he referred. The question of two or three levels of quota is rather wide for today's discussion.
A number of other interesting points were raised which can more conveniently be examined during the Committee stage. Some are technical points arising from the group of changes by which the Bill proposes to take account of advanced techniques in the industry. Others relate

to the general tidying up and improvements we have sought to make in the relief arrangements or the definition of a British film for quota purposes. On this latter points there has been some reference to the lack of British content of some British quota pictures, a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley. It is not easy to know where to draw the line which will enable the industry to obtain the benefit of foreign talent without leaving the situation so open that the talent can steal the picture. However, we have drawn the net tighter and we can leave to the Committee stage the explanation of how restrictive the new provisions are likely to prove.
Finally, in a matter of this kind compromise must inevitably be sought between the desire of the exhibitors to have as free a market as possible for the selection of their films and of the producers to protect their own interests. In the circumstances, there is a surprising amount of general agreement on what the Bill contains. This is due in no small measure to the painstaking work of the Cinematograph Films Council in which so many conflicting interests are at least partially reconciled. There is no person who has worked harder or to whom we are more indebted than the hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East, who has not only been a member of the Council, but has participated in the special committee set up to study the matter. The House is in her debt for her work, which is what has really led to this Bill.
There may be room for argument about whether additional amendments should be made to the existing legislation, or how precisely we should go about achieving certain goals we have in mind, but I think that there will not be much argument about the need to do most of the things we are setting out to do in the Bill.
Several hon. Members raised the point that the passage of this technical Bill will leave the film industry subject to three different Acts of Parliament. This is confusing and I am glad, therefore, to inform the House that we intend, shortly after the passage of the Bill, to introduce a consolidating Measure, which, I hope, will give pleasure to both sides of the House—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—as apparently it does.
Both sides of the House regard this as a modest, useful and not very controversial Bill, and it is with this conviction that I commend it to the attention of the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 38 (Committal of Bills).

LORD HIGH COMMISSIONER (CHURCH OF SCOTLAND) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

6.43 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John Maclay): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I do not propose this evening to enter upon a long and detailed history of the office of Lord High Commissioner to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland. But a few words about the historical significance of the office may be of interest to some hon. Members, particularly perhaps to those who are not Scottish—if any such are in the Chamber—and I also hope it will set this Bill against its proper background.
The office of Lord High Commissioner is a traditional symbol of the relationship between the Crown and the Church of Scotland. It dates from the sixteenth century; and its continuance was specifically secured by the Treaty of Union of 1707. In the seventeenth century the office was the subject of bitter and violent controversy between the Church and Crown, as the Sovereigns of the period tried to assert control over Church affairs in Scotland. The year 1688, however, brought that controversy to an end.
Since that time the history of the Lord High Commissioner's office has been relatively tranquil. The General Assembly has met annually since 1694; and at each of its meetings during those 265 years the Sovereign has been represented by a Commissioner, who has conveyed His Majesty's regret at His being unable to attend in person and an assurance both of His good will to the Assembly and of His intention to uphold

the Presbyterian form of Church Government. The Commissioner has never been, by virtue of his office, a member of the Assembly, and has not intervened in its discussions. He has occupied a seat of dignity, but not of authority, in relation to the Fathers and Brethren. Today, by his attendance at the General Assembly, the Lord High Commissioner symbolises Her Majesty's deep and continuing interest in the deliberations of the Church of Scotland. In attending, as it were, beyond the bar of the House, he also symbolises the independence of the Church in its own affairs, an independence that is recognised both in Her Majesty's Accession Oath and in the Church of Scotland Act, 1921.
The Lord High Commissioner's duties are not confined, of course, to the Assembly Hall. He is the Queen's personal representative during the Assembly. As such he occupies the Palace of Holyroodhouse and there, as Her representative, receives and offers hospitality to a number of guests. These guests include many ministers and office-bearers of the Church of Scotland, but many are drawn from other and wider fields. They come from all walks of life in Scotland: from industry and commerce; from Government, central and local; from the arts; from trades and professions. Visitors from countries overseas in which the Church has a special interest are also invited and made particularly welcome. I am certain the House will agree that the hospitality thus extended by the Lord High Commissioner is deeply appreciated by very many Scottish people. While he is in residence, Holyroodhouse in a very real sense provides a focus of Scottish life. It becomes a meeting-place where representatives of the Church and of the whole nation can be brought together, to their mutual benefit.
The money to meet the Commissioner's expenses in carrying out these duties comes, not from the annual Votes, but from the Consolidated Fund. In consequence of this—since the House must maintain control over expenditure from that Fund—any change in the maximum amount of the expenses can be achieved only by Act of Parliament. Hence the present Bill. As the House will observe, it is a short and single Measure and I think the case for it is clear.
In 1948 the allowance made to the Lord High Commissioner to meet his expenses, which for over a century had stood at £2,000 and had for long been inadequate, was increased to—and here I quote:
such amount not exceeding £4,000 as the Secretary of State may, with the concurrence of the Treasury … determine".
Costs—we have to face it—have increased over the last eleven years, and this maximum has proved quite inadequate. In each year since 1954 it has been necessary to issue the full amount, and latterly even this has proved to be insufficient. Excesses of several hundred pounds have had to be met from other sources.
I am sure the House will agree that it is entirely unacceptable that private individuals should have to be called upon for help to enable the dignity and the efficiency of this high office to be maintained. It would also be plainly undesirable if in future financial considerations of this kind should have to be taken into account when appointments to the post are under consideration.
I should emphasise—because there is a little doubt about it—that the allowance is in no sense a salary: the eminent persons who serve as Lords High Commissioner derive no personal remuneration. The allowance is designed, so far as possible, to meet their out-of-pocket expenses.
These are incurred in a number of ways. The Lord High Commissioner must take up residence with a small suite at the Palace of Holyroodhouse, for the ten days while the Assembly is sitting. This involves the cost of putting the rooms in order, of heating and lighting, and of staff wages. He requires an office with a small staff headed by the Purse Bearer to arrange his programme, manage his establishment and deal with his correspondence. He must have transport for the round of visits which he and his lady pay. Lastly, and this forms by far the largest single item of the Commissioner's expenses, he must meet the cost of the entertaining of which I have already spoken.
I am satisfied that since 1948 each Lord High Commissioner has made every effort to ensure that his duties are

carried out without extravagance, and with the maximum economy compatible with the dignity of the office.

Mr. John Rankin: Before he leaves the point of salary, could the right hon. Gentleman say whether or not the amount which is given—this is apart from the terminology—figures in the individual's Income Tax return when he receives it?

Mr. Maclay: That is a question which I cannot answer here, certainly not without notice, because it raises a number of very big problems which, I confess, had not occurred to me. I should think not, however, because it is in no way salary. I am not a sufficiently rapid expert in Income Tax law to know what happens in these cases, but I should not imagine that it would figure in the Income Tax return because the money is given to meet out-of-pocket expenditure. However, I shall have to take advice on that.
It has proved impossible to keep below £4,000 the necessary and traditional expenses of the office. An increase in this maximum has thus become unavoidable.
In proposing that the maximum allowance should be increased to £7,500 the Government do not intend that there should be any relaxation in the strict standards of economy at present practised. The full allowance—I ask the House to note this—will not necessarily be paid each year, but the sum to be granted will be determined in the light of needs. Flexibility is essential—for example, to allow for occasions when additional expenditure has to be incurred for some special reason. As it happens, in 1960 the Lord High Commissioner will have to go into residence twice, instead of once as in normal years. There will be in 1960 an additional meeting of the Assembly in the autumn as part of the celebration of the Quater-centenary of the Scottish Reformation. This, I understand, will be attended by many representatives of overseas Churches, whom the Commissioner will particularly wish to receive. By fixing a maximum of £7,500 we shall leave flexibility and room for such additional expenses.
I feel sure that the House will recognise the need for this Measure, and will readily give it a Second Reading.

6.51 p.m.

Mr. Thomas Fraser: The Secretary of State for Scotland has, I think, made it clear that the purpose of the Bill is not to broaden the type of expenditure by the Lord High Commissioner. I believe that most of the money is needed for providing hospitality. I think the right hon. Gentleman has made it clear that it is no part of his purpose that the hospitality should be enlarged as a result of the Bill but that the Bill is required, as he put it, to take account of the change in the value of money since the figure of £4,000 was determined by the 1948 Act.
However, I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman can tell us how he reached a decision about the amount of money which is required for this purpose. He said in the course of his remarks that there would be no relaxation in the strict standards of economy. For him to say that rather implies that he has some authority to ensure that there are strict standards of economy in the administration of the money. Perhaps he has—I do not know—but I should be glad if he would tell us.
I really do not know to whom the money goes. I know that it is made available for the purposes of the Lord High Commissioner, but I am also aware that there is a person known as the Purse Bearer who plays an important part in these matters. From that designation, one would gain the impression that the Purse Bearer was the fellow who carried the purse, and I would have thought that the Purse Bearer might be the man who handled the money and paid the accounts on behalf of the Lord High Commissioner. Perhaps the Secretary of State can help us there.
Although the money is made available for the purposes of the Lord High Commissioner, does the Secretary of State determine whether to make available the whole of the authorised amount or some part of it? Does he allocate this amount of money to the Lord High Commissioner and does the Lord High Commissioner at the end of the day give him an account of the way in which he has spent the money or a certain part of it and hand the balance back? I have not the foggiest idea, and I should like to know.
As it has been made clear to us that there is no element of salary in the money and that the Lord High Commissioner cannot profit by one penny from the provisions of the existing legislation or from this Measure when it becomes an Act, and as the Secretary of State talks about enforcing strict standards of economy, one inevitably has the impression that there is a person in whose keeping there is to be put a certain amount of money to carry through a certain purpose and that, in the carrying through of that certain purpose, some note is taken of the economy with which the money is administered. Can the Secretary of State tell us whether there is any system of accounting, and, if so, by whom it is done? Can he tell us whether at any time he or his predecessors have made available a sum of money which has been found to be in excess of that required for the purpose for which it has been made available and that a balance has been returned?
I have asked these few questions because, as the Secretary of State knows, there are people in Scotland who ask questions about these things, and the Lord High Commissioner's function today is not what it was when the office was instituted. It is said nowadays, with a great deal of truth, that the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland could be held and could do its business even if no Lord High Commissioner were present—in other words, that he is not an essential or integral part of the General Assembly. It is felt that he is appointed annually these days to carry on a tradition which would appear to be wanted by the Church of Scotland and by the people of Scotland. That is to say, we understand that there is a desire in the Church of Scotland and among the people of Scotland that there should be no break in the tradition of the Lord High Commissioner attending on the occasion of the General Assembly.
We have the impression that the Lord High Commissioner's principal duties during the period of the General Assembly are visiting certain institutions within a reasonable distance of Edinburgh, giving subscriptions to a number of deserving charities—these, I believe, are made out of the allowance—and


providing hospitality not only for the people who attend the General Assembly but for a number of favoured people who have no known connection, or do not necessarily have any connection at all, with the General Assembly, people who are invited to lunches and dinners in the course of the Lord High Commissioner's residence in Holyrood-house.
Therefore, I should be grateful, and I think that some people outside the House would be grateful, if the right hon. Gentleman could give me an answer to some of the questions which I have asked.

6.59 p.m.

Mr. E. G. Willis: I listened to the Secretary of State's explanation of the Bill with interest, but at the end of it I found myself wondering why it was that the figure of £7,500 was fixed. How did the Government arrive at that figure? It does not seem to me to represent increased costs if one makes a comparison with other increased costs and prices since 1948. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will tell us why this figure happens to have been chosen. Why is it £7,500 and not £10,000, or £6,000.
I do not want to say much about the Bill, but there are one or two things which I find rather puzzling. The right hon. Gentleman said that for every year since 1954 the expenses in connection with this office had been several hundred pounds more than £4,000. I presume that means that they were less than £1,000 more, but nevertheless more than £4,000, and once again I am bound to ask why the right hon. Gentleman should ask for the amount to be raised to £7,500. Is it simply because there are to be two Assemblies next year? How long will the second Assembly in Edinburgh last? Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can tell us something about that.
I have no objection to the present procedure. When the amount was last raised I opposed the Bill because I thought that that was an inopportune moment to raise the sum allowed for meeting the expenses of the Lord High Commissioner. This office seems to be liked by the people of Scotland and appreciated by the Church, and therefore I have no objection to it. I had

no objection to it when I opposed the increase in the 1948 Bill. I objected to the timing, as I do now.
It is a curious comment on the mentality of a Government which has suffered a terrific defeat in Scotland that this should be its first peculiarly Scottish Measure. One would have thought that the Government would have had more ideas about Scotland's needs. The Government have been undoubtedly severely kicked in the pants by the people of Scotland and yet this is their first purely Scottish Measure. Is this the way the right hon. Gentleman is to tackle the needs of Scotland, fiddling about with matters like this? Surely the civil servants could have provided him with something better from the pigeon-holes at St. Andrew's House. Why do we get this Bill first? Even today I am left wondering about the timing of these proposals.
Why should the Lord High Commissioner have to prepare Holyroodhouse Palace for himself? Could that not be done by the Ministry of Works, or whoever is responsible for the Palace? I cannot see why that preparation should necessitate expenditure by the Lord High Commissioner.
I have no objection to hospitality in connection with the Church. If the Church ministers, their wives and their elders enjoyed most of the hospitality, I would have no complaint, but the fact is that the churchmen in Scotland do not enjoy the biggest part of the hospitality. So far as I know, the nearest that the average minister gets to enjoying it is attending one garden party. Much of the money is spent in other connections for entertainment of a quite different kind.
The right hon. Gentleman said that the Lord High Commissioner had to entertain representatives of the Government, local authorities, trade, industry, the arts and other aspects of Scottish life. That might be true, but that does not have much to do with the Church. I may be wrong about that, but from what I have seen in Edinburgh I do not think that many churchmen happen to meet those people—they do not do so in the very nature of the functions.
I think that a great deal of the hospitality in Edinburgh is enjoyed by a limited circle of people. In Edinburgh


we have a group of people who seem to be present at most functions of this sort and who seem to enjoy most of the hospitality which is going. I would call them a group almost of social scroungers. The right hon. Gentleman frowns, but these people are present at most of these ceremonies and seem to enjoy them.
If we are to give more money for hospitality. I should like the hospitality to be spread more widely. I wonder how many of my 55,000 constituents go to Holyroodhouse Palace. I wonder how many of them have ever enjoyed hospitality there I am sure that their number is very few and that even fewer have got beyond a garden party—and only a few have gone to a garden party. I appreciate that the representatives of local authorities change from time to time and that hospitality is given to the representatives of deserving organisations, such as the W.V.S., but there are many social scroungers who seem to enjoy themselves on all these occasions, at social functions of the Lord High Commissioner and others.
Many people feel as I do about this hospitality. Apart from that, if the money is for the benefit of the Church, well and good. If it is going to the ministers, the elders and their wives, well and good. They do a jolly good job of work and deserve to be treated hospitably when they go to Edinburgh. But perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can indicate why the amount was fixed at the figure of £7,500.

7.8 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Emrys Hughes.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. Gentleman rise to move his Amendment?

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I wish to have your guidance, Mr. Speaker. Is the Amendment in order?

Mr. Speaker: The Amendment is in order should the hon. Member desire to move it.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I do not intend to move my Amendment, which asks the House to decline
to give a Second Reading to a Bill to increase the allowances payable to Her Majesty's High

Commissioner to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland until such time as increased payments have been made in the allowances to old-age pensioners and the unemployed.
I understand that at a later stage I shall be able to make the points which I have made in the Amendment as it is set down on the Order Paper.
However, I feel that certain things need to be said. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) has taken the same attitude of interrogation which he adopted in 1948 when we had a remarkable debate, as I have good reason to remember. On that occasion we were in a very small minority, and I found myself assailed by Mr. John McGovern, Mrs. Jean Mann, Lord Boothby, the then Lord Advocate and the chairman of the Scottish group of the Labour Party at that time, a very formidable combination.
I remember especially the remark of the chairman of the Scottish Labour Party, because there was a Labour Government at the time. He said that some day the hon. Member for South Ayrshire would wander into the Chamber and accidentally vote for the Labour Government. I remember, too, that because we ventured to say a few words of criticism he said we had some sinister purpose, which was to strangle the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland. We were doing nothing of the kind.
As the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East said, when we venture to make some criticism we are not acting with any sort of hostility to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland. All that we are doing is to draw attention to certain anachronisms and peculiarities of this Office. The right hon. Gentleman has tried to clear up some curious conceptions of what the Lord High Commissioner does.
I share the regret that this piece of legislation for Scotland has been put in the shop window. Indeed, I am rather surprised to see the Secretary of State for Scotland in his place at all. When a severe electoral defeat has been inflicted on the Government the figurehead usually either resigns or goes to another place. But here we have the same genial, amiable right hon. Gentleman who is going to pursue his customary futility,


and here is his first example of pettifogging, futile, small, irrelevant legislation for Scotland. This is likely to be typical of the right hon. Gentleman.
I had one moment of elation when I saw the election results and the formation of the new Government. I saw that the right hon. Gentleman had arrived in Downing Street and I saw there a different face. I thought that at last we were going to have a change. But here we have the right hon. Gentleman, and, alas, he is likely to be with us for five years. If the right hon. Gentleman wanted some small piece of legislation to bring along as his first offering to the House of Commons I could suggest many that would be more appreciated than this one. There was a mining disaster in Scotland and the Fife County Council wished to grant £5,000 towards the fund. This was a generous action which had popular support. The right hon. Gentleman refused to sanction the expenditure of £5,000 by the Fifeshire County Council. His explanation was that he did not have the necessary legal power to do so.
I can understand that. If the right hon. Gentleman had come along and brought in as his first act of legislation a Bill to amend the Local Government Act of Scotland, to allow Fifeshire County Council to grant £5,000, it would have been a most sensible act. That would have been more sensible than arranging to increase the allowance of the Lord High Commissioner by £3,500. It shows how completely out of tune the right hon. Gentleman is with the mood of the people of Scotland.
It is true that this institution dates far back into history. We do not often get an opportunity to discuss these ancient institutions. As a matter of fact, this is an institution with which we do not want to bother. We do not regard it as important. We have never had a Motion to abolish it because we do not think it is a relevant or important institution. However, when we receive an offer to look at it we like to see what it is.
I want to stress the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East. This institution is not part of the General Assembly. It was established back in the distant past in the quarrel between the Church, the State and the

King. The King thought it necessary to discipline the Church and the Lord High Commissioner was sent to Scotland, not to encourage religion but to ensure that the Church did not go too far to the Left wing. That is an historical fact. The next thing may be to appoint a Lord High Commissioner to the conference of the Labour Party so that it does not go too far to the Left.
We could abolish this institution without in any way injuring the Church of Scotland or impeding its progress. The Lord High Commissioner is not an integral part of the Church of Scotland. The office is an anachronism and an irrelevancy, and must sooner or later die. When institutions require contributions from the Exchequer to keep them alive and when they cannot pay for their own entertainment, should the Secretary of State for Scotland come along to the House of Commons and ask for an extra dole? When institutions have served the historical purpose for which they were set up they might as well fade away.
In 1924 Tom Johnston, one of our greatest Scottish historians, who at one time took an interest in the General Assembly of Scotland, thought it should have been abolished. When he wrote criticising the appointment of Mr. James Brown he said:
The old Whigs who abolished the Keeper of the Green Wax in the Exchequer of Ireland and the Deputy Maintainer of the Cheese Barrel in the Lieutenancy of the Great Hundreds might have swept away this '£2,000 High Commissioner—Your Grace business' when they were at it.
Sooner or later that must come to pass.
I want to make a suggestion that might win the approval of the Church of Scotland and might enable this to be done painlessly. I am a great believer that the Assembly of the Church of Scotland should become a dynamic and important religious institution. I am a friend and supporter of the great personality who in recent years has helped to make it that. I am a great friend of the Very Reverend Sir George Macleod. Not long ago I took part in what might be called a religious ceremony in Glasgow and walked alongside the ex-Moderator of the Church of Scotland in a procession in favour of banning the H-bomb. The fact that a pacifist like the Very


Reverend Sir George Macleod is taking such a part in the work of the Assembly is a good sign that new impulses are at work. I want to encourage the Church Assembly to go forward on its great mission, but I do not want it to be encumbered with this Lord High Commissioner business. I want the office taken completely out of politics. I do not want the Secretary of State to have to raise money from the House of Commons every decade.
Up to now the job has been largely a question of political patronage. It has had strong criticisms from the Church. In fact, in an article in the Scotsman there was a reference by the Rev. Archibald Fleming to the Lord High Commissionership. He said:
The formal inauguration of the office in 1580 was not auspicious. It fell to that shifty and infamous lawyer, Sir James Balfour of Pittendreich, the most corrupt man of his age, to be its holder.
I do not wish to comment upon that reference; during these later years the Lord High Commissionership has become a respectable office. But I do not want it to be a political appointment. I do not want to see a Labour man appointed under a Labour Government and a Tory appointed when the Conservatives are in power.
I hope that the Secretary of State will consider my suggestion that instead of our appointing the Lord High Commissioner, and wasting our time in doing so, the office be merged with that of the Moderator of the Church of Scotland. That may be a strange idea, but I believe it is the best way to solve the problem. As the right hon. Gentleman has said, the duties of the Lord High Commissioner are purely ceremonial. All he has to do is to read to the General Assembly the Message from the Queen, and then report to the Queen. All that could be done quite as effectively by the Moderator without our having anything to do with it. The Moderator would be the spokesman of the Church and politics would not enter into the matter.

Mr. William Ross: My hon. Friend will be aware of the history of the Church of Scotland. Would he have the Church of Scotland accept a Moderator who was virtually appointed by the Queen?

Mr. Hughes: I am acquainted with a little of the history of the Church of Scotland. My idea is that the Church elects the Moderator and that he should automatically become the Lord High Commissioner.

Mr. Ross: Mr. Ross indicated dissent.

Mr. Ede: The history of the matter is that on occasion the Lord High Commissioner closed down the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland on orders from the Crown before it could transact any business. As far as I know, those powers have not been abrogated.

Mr. Ross: Yes, they have.

Mr. Hughes: I still cannot see anything against my suggestion. The Moderator is elected annually, and I suggest that the duties of the Lord High Commissioner should automatically pass to him and that the Crown should have no power to interfere with what goes on in the Church of Scotland.
My predecessor, Mr. James Brown, was the first Labour Lord High Commissioner, and everybody agrees that he held office with great dignity and that his wife performed her duties with great dignity. There is a story that when she was approached by a reporter—it was such a novelty for a Socialist to be appointed to this office that many Press representatives arrived at the little mining village of Annbank—and asked, "What are you going to wear when you go to Holyrood?", she half opened the door and said, "And are you going to ask that question of the Queen?" She behaved with very great dignity.
It was Mr. Ramsay MacDonald's appointment of Mr. Brown that first drew attention to the history of the office. This appointment was the most revolutionary thing that Mr. MacDonald did, although I do not think that he was aware of it at the time. After that Conservative Governments came back to power, and then another Labour Government, when Lord Mathers became Lord High Commissioner. Patronage came to be exercised on a purely political basis.
Since 1951 we have had a long procession of marquesses, dukes and lords, with the exception of Mr. Walter Elliott. I want to know whether this is in line with a democratic age. When the name


of Hamilton is mentioned I always associate it with my hon. Friend who represents that constituency, but in the select circles of the Church it brings to mind the Duke of Hamilton, although he has nothing to do with it. Yet the anachronism of this procession of lords, viscounts and earls carries on. It is completely out of keeping with the modern age. It would be a good thing if, instead of the Lord High Commissioner being nominated by a party organisation, politicians washed their hands of the appointment.
I turn now to the question of expenses. In 1948 we had a considerable discussion about them. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East was very insistent. He thought that the Bill was wrongly timed because on the Saturday previously he had sat in at a Labour Party meeting in Edinburgh and listened to Sir Stafford Cripps making a speech asking for economy, austerity and a wage freeze. Then, the next week, there came along this little legislative morsel. Then we started talking about the expenses. I remember Mrs. Jean Mann saying that she had been to a garden party. She said that there was nothing but austerity in the cup of weak tea which was dished out to ministers of the Church if they could get near the marquee. The very humble disciples of the Lord were usually thrust aside by the magistrates and pushed into the background in the struggle for cups of tea. What sort of dignified proceeding is this?
This so outraged Sir Robert Boothby—as he then was—that he said that the Government were asking not for too much but for too little. He thought that it was a scandal that these ministers of the Church should be offered only cups of tea. He suggested that the allowance should be increased from £4,000 to £10,000, the idea being that, in order to restore the dignity of the struggle for cups of tea and ease the pressure round the marquee, whisky and soda should also be dispensed. What is this figure? Apparently, the Government have not decided on this figure of £7,500 either on Mrs. Mann's estimate or Lord Boothby's estimate, but it looks as if they had Lord Boothby's estimate in mind. We would get rid of all these things if the House of Commons did not have anything to do with it at all.
I say that, after a certain date, we should hand over the whole proceedings to be decided by the Church itself, that we should be prepared to put Holyrood House at the disposal of the Church of Scotland and that, with that, our responsibilities should end. We do not want this matter to come up every decade because the price of whisky rises every so often. The proceedings on this Bill would provide an appropriate time, and I hope that I shall be able to submit an Amendment which the Government will accept and which will virtually end the office of Lord High Commissioner
We have ended superfluous offices before. We have no viceroys of India. They no longer exist, because they have no function. Various governors-general have no duties to perform at all. Therefore, my suggestion is that we should say a very courteous, dignified and respectful goodbye to the Lord High Commissioner of the Church of Scotland, and so relieve future Secretaries of State for Scotland of the duty of asking the House of Commons for more money.

7.32 p.m.

Mr. John Rankin: My hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) has delivered his usual stimulating and challenging speech on this topic, and I am sure that he will forgive me if I do not follow him into an estimation of the sort of ecclesiastical pattern that will be developed from the hierarchy in the Scottish Church.
I want to confine myself solely to the money which Parliament is voting tonight. The Secretary of State seems to have no knowledge whatsoever of one aspect of that sum. My hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Fraser) appeared to vie with him in that lack of knowledge, because my hon. Friend suggested that he had not the foggiest idea what happens to the money. Then he went on to suggest that there should be some system of accounting for its disposal. Surely, something ought to be said by this House about a sum of money which we, through the Bill, are disposing of, and when on both Front Benches neither of the hon. Members who are concerned with this matter have much idea of what has happened.

Mr. Fraser: Surely I have no more responsibility for the Bill than has my hon. Friend. Why should I have more knowledge than he has?

Mr. Rankin: I am not really suggesting, and I am sorry if it appeared that I was suggesting, that my hon. Friend had any responsibility in the matter. I am depending on the fact that he is the spokesman for the Opposition side. Of course, his attitude on this question is reinforced by the fact that the Secretary of State for Scotland, who has the responsibility and should be able to tell us about the money, evidently has not full knowledge of what happened to it.

Mr. Maclay: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will permit me to point out that my duties do not include those of a Commissioner of Inland Revenue.

Mr. Rankin: I was coming to that point. I do not mind in the least that the Secretary of State has anticipated it, because this money, as the Bill makes clear, is to be given to an individual, and its amount is not important. So far as I am concerned personally, it could be £20,000 or £30,000. I am in no way challenging either directly or indirectly the amount. During the past week there was in Room D of this House a gentleman from the Department to which the Secretary of State has referred—the Commissioners of Inland Revenue. Last year, I was one of many hon. Members who went to see him. He made it clear to me that not one single penny of the money that came to me from any source whatsoever should be excluded from the return which, like every other hon. Member of this House, I must make to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue.
We in the House are in the position of paying out a certain sum of money to an individual, and when I asked what seemed to me to be a fair question to ask at the time, the Secretary of State did not know the answer. I felt that my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton was supplementing the point that I raised when he suggested that there should be a system of accounting. Obviously, there is no system of accounting at all; because, if there was, the Scottish Office, which has the primary responsibility in this matter, must know whether or not tax is payable, and, if

it is payable, whether tax is paid and to what extent it is paid. I think that there is nothing unfair in that type of question.
There is no element of grudge in my mind about the amount, but is there some way whereby one particular citizen of the United Kingdom can get round the Inland Revenue Commissioners? If there is a way, I hope that the Secretary of State, for the benefit of us all in this House tonight, will tell us how, when money goes to an individual, he can get round the Commissioners of Inland Revenue. People will be very interested in that. Is that what is happening? I do not know.
If it appears to be somewhat niggardly that we should adopt that attitude to this particular citizen who is the representative of the Queen, who is clear of Income Tax and pays none, is it to be argued that, because he is the representative of Her Majesty, automatically he pays no Income Tax on the sum which is given to him? If that may appear, as I have suggested, to be a grudging attitude, how can we get round it?
I suggest that the way to get round it is simply to allow the Lord High Commissioner to incur what he looks upon as necessary expenses for his ceremonial affairs, and to send the bill to the office of the Secretary of State for Scotland. [Interruption.] Why not? After all, the present way is a roundabout method. The Secretary of State for Scotland or, in effect, the Treasury, give for this three or four weeks, or will give, £7,500—

Mr. Willis: It is ten days.

Mr. Rankin: It is ten days, that is £750 per day which will be given for each of ten days. Will accounts be rendered? If only £6,000 is consumed in the ten days, does the £1,500 go back? I do not know whether the Secretary of State is listening to me—

Mr. Emrys Hughes: May I intervene?

Mr. Rankin: I have not the slightest objection to any interruption my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) may make at any time, and so I readily give way.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I think that my hon. Friend is asking the Secretary of


State a conundrum which the right hon. Gentleman is not in a position to answer. The conundrum should be directed to the representative of the Treasury who is sitting on the Government Front Bench. We have at the Treasury a special Minister who should know all the answers to the questions and I suggest that the expert on these intricate problems is not the Secretary of State for Scotland but the Financial Secretary to the Treasury.

Mr. Rankin: There is nothing in life like co-operative action. When my hon. Friend—my very close hon. Friend—the Member for South Ayrshire delivers a speech of his own, it is always an excellent effort. When I deliver a speech of my own I hope that at least it has some merit. But when the two of us get together to deliver one speech, then perhaps the result will be something very difficult to measure. I do not mind the intervention of my hon. Friend into the comments which I would have made.
As a matter of fact, the Secretary of State did appear either to be taking it easy or perhaps consulting with the Solicitor-General for Scotland, because of the position of his headpiece, and I wondered whether things would become more desperate or more easy as a result of that conversation. But if there is a Treasury representative present, I hope that he is listening to what is being said, and I hope that when the Secretary of State replies to the debate, he will have something to say about these things.
Will hon. Members please take it with all sincerity that there is absolutely no element of grudge in my mind or any attempt to impose a sort of inquisition? I think that every hon. Member will agree that that is the general attitude of the House, but I think that when the House votes money, which it does regularly, at least it is the business of the Minister responsible to the House to be fully informed about his action and what may derive from it. Because of that, I have raised the point which I am putting before the House tonight.
We are told that all this is for a social occasion and that it has nothing whatever to do with tradition. It has been said that it has nothing to do with the Church as such, or with the Assembly as such, but, of course, it has a great

deal to do with the hospitality and the ceremonials associated with the traditions of the Assembly fortnight, and with the business that goes on. I often wonder, in view of the fact that only one group seems to cling round most of these functions, why, if they have to go on—as I hope they will go on—their area cannot be spread.
I was a member of the Church of Scotland and I still am a member. I served the Church as a manager for many years of my life and I never on one single occasion had any opportunity or any invitation to attend one of these social functions. What I am saying about myself is true of the great mass of those who belong to the Church of which I was a member. These invitations always seemed to go to that separate little clique which dominates many churches in Scotland today except in those areas where the congregation consists solely of the working class. These were the people who went to Edinburgh and participated in all these functions towards the continuance of which this money is being voted tonight, or at least is before us for consideration.
I should like to see more working people going to these gatherings. The first and only invitation which I ever received was when I became a Member of Parliament. That is when I moved from the relatively low social level of being a teacher and reached what is recognised, or accepted, as the higher social level of being a Member of Parliament. Then I qualified at once for an invitation. That is not a Christian attitude and this is a Christian organisation about which we are talking. Some one mentioned alcohol—whisky. I forget who mentioned it—

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Lord Boothby.

Mr. Rankin: Who is he? Am I to understand that whisky is associated with these gatherings? The British Women's Temperance Organisation is one of the strongest forces in the Christian Church in Scotland and I am certain that if we tonight were regarded by these women as voting £7,500 towards the consumption of whisky at gatherings associated with the Assembly our name, in their eyes, would be mud. Will the Secretary of State tell us if that


is in any way what we are doing, because, of course, it raises other considerations. All over the country I see that "Beer is best". Why, then, should we devote some of this money to whisky?

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Do not look at me. I did not propose it.

Mr. Rankin: In other parts of the country I am told that "Guinness is good for you." Why give it to whisky? Somebody mentioned whisky, and I thought that it was the hon. Member for South Ayrshire who, of course, is a notorious hater of what is regarded as Scotland's national beverage.
I said that I thought these social occasions might be enlarged. Why in the name of the wee man, as they say in the street, should they be confined to Edinburgh? What harm has Glasgow done? If these are social occasions where a certain group, a certain section of society, is entertained at the expense of this House, which is the guardian of the moneys of the country—I have no objection in the least to that—why should they be confined to Edinburgh? Why should not Glasgow be considered?

Mr. G. M. Thomson: Or Dundee?

Mr. Rankin: Or Dundee, or Kilmarnock? Why this concentration of expenditure in one particular part of Scotland? We talk about the most favoured nation. Which city in Scotland enjoys being the most favoured city? Everything seems to go to Edinburgh.

Mr. Ede: Aberdeen?

Mr. Rankin: If there is a surplus why should it not go to Aberdeen?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Sir William Anstruther-Gray): Order. I hope that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) will bear in mind that this is a debate, not a conversation with hon. Members on the bench behind him.

Mr. Rankin: I hope, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that that very gentle reprimand was directed to those who were creating the conversation and not to the victim of it. However, I shall not encourage

it, because I am now drawing to a rapid conclusion. I trust hon. Members will think seriously of the last point I have made. Glasgow is the greatest city in Scotland.

Mr. Willis: It is not the capital city.

Mr. Rankin: No, but it has the capital, on which Edinburgh lives luxuriously. Once again, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I did not start that. I feel that Glasgow is entitled at least to one day out of the ten of the social celebrations that take place as part of the Assembly. I hope I have not put too many questions to the Secretary of State, and I hope that when he replies to the debate he will have something of importance to say.

7.54 p.m.

Mr. William Ross: I wondered just exactly where my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) would finish when he said that we want the Assembly to travel and he wanted it to go to Glasgow. That is what he said.

Mr. Rankin: No, no.

Mr. Ross: I am very glad to hear my hon. Friend say that, because a long time ago it was said that where the Assembly sits is not decided by this House and not decided by any Lord High Commissioner, but by the Church of Scotland.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is correct in pointing out that where the Assembly meets is not decided by this House; it is not decided in this debate and, therefore, discussion on that point would be out of order in this debate.

Mr. Rankin: On a point of order. I think that I made it clear at the very beginning of my speech that I was divorcing this sum altogether from the Assembly and in the latter part of my speech I was dealing with the social occasions which seem to crowd upon the Assembly. It was the social functions that I thought should be spread more widely.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I do not appreciate that as a point of order, but I think that the debate can be resumed.

Mr. Ross: Even on that question, surely it is obvious that the social occasions are related to the Assembly, because


the whole of the duties of the Lord High Commissioner are related to the Assembly of the Church of Scotland and it would be much more likely that those social occasions would be related to the actual place where he is carrying out his duties.
I hope that we shall get a reply to some of the very pertinent questions which have been asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Govan. We are entitled to have a reply, if not from the Secretary of State for Scotland, from the representative of the Treasury, because presumably he has read the Bill. His name is on it.

Mr. Rankin: He is blushing.

Mr. Willis: We should adjourn the House until the Financial Secretary knows.

Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman's name is on the Bill. It says:
Presented by Mr. Secretary Maclay, supported by Sir Edward Boyle …

Mr. Rankin: That is the first time that the Financial Secretary knew it.

Mr. Ross: The position is much more interesting than some of my hon. Friends have seemed to suggest, because this is an annual allowance, not paid, but payable. The person who decides what will be payable for each year and who, therefore, should be in a position to account to the House, is the Secretary of State for Scotland, with the concurrence of the Treasury, whose representative has been here, but who, to my mind, has not been participating helpfully in the debate to get us out of the difficulties which have been troubling us.
So far as I understand the Bill, at present £4,000 is not paid, but "a sum not exceeding" that amount can be paid. In other words, any sum may be payable up to, say, £3,952 16s. 7½d. Now we are raising the ceiling to £7,500, but that does not mean that in any one year £7,500 will be paid. From the point of view of Parliamentary accountancy it is right that we should be considering whether or not we should pay anything at all or give any additional sum. That is equally relevant under this Bill.
I do not think that anyone should give us lectures about hard words which we might say about the Lord High Com-

missioner. They are nothing to the hard words that have been said about Lord High Commissioners in the Church of Scotland in the past. At one time this was the most hated office in the Church of Scotland. It is interesting to know that next year will be the four hundredth year of the meetings of the General Assembly. I believe that the first General Assembly was held in the year before Mary Queen of Scots landed in Scotland in 1560. One of the reasons why we so carefully separate the Lord High Commissioner and anything pertaining thereto and the Assembly of the Church of Scotland is that the Assembly is the home of democracy in Scotland. It was in the Assemblies of the Church of Scotland that the feelings of Scotland, not only religious but on social events, were voiced. It was democracy only in the Assembly of Scotland.
I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Govan has left the Chamber. I was surprised when he told us that he never received an invitation to the Assembly. I was surprised because he told us that he had been a manager. That word troubles me, because we have not got managers, but elders in the Church of Scotland, and the annual representation in attendance at the Assembly is a quarter of the ministers of the Church of Scotland with elders from their congregation, from their session. That goes in rotation, so that within four years every church in Scotland has its ministers and elected elders present. If my hon. Friend has been an elder he must have been unfortunate in not having been chosen by the session in any particular year to go to the Assembly.
I think that the Assembly in its first year, 400 years ago, had about 42 people. This year the number will be nearly 1,800, and when we think of the number of people attending—the elders who are, of course, laymen and not clergymen and the ministers—we shall appreciate just exactly how representative it is of the whole of Scotland.
I am surprised that my hon. Friend did not realise that the Assembly had travelled throughout Scotland in the past. In fact, one of the most important Assemblies ever to meet was that which met in Glasgow in 1638. My right hon. Friend, in an interjection, reminded my


hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) that at one time the High Commissioner ordered the Assembly to disband, but what he did not say was that the Assembly refused to disband in 1638 in Glasgow and continued to sit.
Within the office of Lord High Commissioner there is four centuries of violent history of the relationship between the democratic Church of Scotland and the State, concerning the man appointed by the King to control, to direct and, indeed, to suppress, if necessary, the Assemblies of the Church of Scotland.
When my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire suggests that the Moderator could himself be representative of both Church and of State, I think he will appreciate right away that the whole objection of the Church of Scotland to the office and powers of the Lord High Commissioner throughout the years is that to give him any power at all is to deny the protests which have been made by the Church throughout the centuries.
There have been these centuries of struggle—at times it has been skirmishes and at other times very serious—as to whether the Lord High Commissioner had the right to assemble the Assembly and whether he had the right to close it. For many years, when they could not make up their minds about it, neither side would give in. Both the Lord High Commissioner and the Moderator and the Assembly of the Church of Scotland used to announce the date of the next Assembly, having carefully agreed it beforehand. All that was settled in 1928. The Assembly of the Church of Scotland can sit and decide its sittings and the length of its sittings without reference to the Lord High Commissioner. As a matter of fact, the Lord High Commissioner is voteless, without opinion, and without power, and even the seat in which he sits when the Assembly is meeting is technically outside the House.
I think that it was last year, or the year before, when we had a Lord High Commissioner who came down from his seat and spoke, because he was an elder and elected to be a representative; he spoke not as Lord High Commissioner, but as an elder of the Church of Scotland. Here is a once-great office which because of the considerable contention in relation

to the Church of Scotland is today, as my hon. Friend said, something which has no power at all. I wonder whether my hon. Friend would suggest that we in the House should stop the practice of shutting the door when we see Black Rod come from another place. I suppose that that may be regarded as childish, too, but I am sure that my right hon. Friend, who is one of the oldest Members of the House and who appreciates the symbolism of history that is represented in that action, would think it far better to keep that symbol and to be able to assure people what lies behind it.

Mr. Ede: I should be very sorry to see it disappear. It always reminds us how plucky we were before we had any Scottish Members here.

Mr. Ross: Exactly. But if there had been Scottish Members here, probably it would never have happened.
We still have a Lord High Commissioner and in his powerless person we still have represented the whole history of the struggle and the victory of the democratic Church in Scotland. I sincerely hope that we shall appreciate today that it is as well to retain it. The Queen is still represented. I think that it is regarded in Scotland as a worthwhile office from the point of view that it survives with its pageantry as a courtesy gesture. It survives and I think that it is highly valued. It is a national recognition of religion and of the fact that the Church enjoys that for which it had to fight for a long time—complete spiritual freedom.
Nevertheless, the £7,500 has still to be justified. The Assembly meets for ten days. It has to do a great deal of entertaining to spend £750 a day. I think that that takes some justifying. I want the Lord High Commissioner to continue with his hospitality. I think that there is not a person in the whole of Scotland who would question the garden party, because that is the one to which the whole of the Assembly goes, ministers and elders from the Shetlands right down to Whithorn on the Border. It is the most democratic garden party held in these islands. There are some other garden parties which we could probably abolish and which would be no great loss to the people of the country, but this is the democratic Assembly.
My hon. Friend is probably right in his other comment. There is a clique, always there. I think that it is this which gets people down when they ask for justification for the continuation of this hospitality. I hope that the criticisms that have been made tonight will be such as to ensure that the hospitality will be much more widely spread and in a different way.
I was glad that last year we had the presence at the Assembly, on the invitation of the Lord High Commissioner, of the Home Secretary. Unfortunately, it did not do him very much good. That was the time when he listened to a wonderful debate on Nyasaland. Was it not right to have the Lord High Commissioner appointed to sit there and hear exactly what the Church of Scotland thought about this burning issue last year, but to sit there powerless and voteless from the point of view of his office? I was glad of the hospitality which we provided for the Home Secretary to improve his education and to learn how the people of Scotland felt on a colonial question which was so near to their hearts, and I hope that it will continue. Dr. Banda has already participated in this hospitality. I am sure that he will participate in it again, but we want it to be soon.
One of the important features about the Assembly is that more than a hundred people attend from overseas, which is an excellent thing. The present Moderator is from the South African Church. I hope that no one will think for a moment that we are in any way criticising the Church of Scotland, but we are concerned to see reflected in the hospitality, for which Parliament is so generously providing money, more democratic hospitality, more widely-spread hospitality. We want to feel that there is less of the self-contained little group which is always hanging around the coat-tails of whoever happens to be the Lord High Commissioner.
Our criticism may be valid. We want the Secretary of State, or the powerful aide he has with him from the Treasury, to tell us the answer to these questions. Is £750 a day justified in relation to this hospitality? Above all, they should tell us why we have the Bill at this moment. The Secretary of State for Scotland and his predecessor were in power, ruling us benignly for eight years. They told us

that we had never had it so good, but apparently the Lord High Commissioner of the Church of Scotland had never had it so bad. Why is it that the Bill has not been introduced until now? They must have known what was the cost of the garden parties and the dinners and the other entertainment provided in the running of Holyrood for these few days.

Mr. Willis: In opening the debate the right hon. Gentleman said that the expenses have been more than £4,000 since 1954.

Mr. Ross: That is another dereliction of duty. The Bill is no doubt partly to meet the expenses of next year. If the Secretary of State discovered that the Bill was necessary, why was it not introduced before the House rose for the Summer Recess? Would it have been a little inconvenient for him to demonstrate to the people of Scotland that the quotation "never had it so good" not only did not apply to Scotland, but, also, did not apply to the Lord High Commissioner? I was about to refer to him as our Tory Secretary of State, but I always forget that he is not a Tory; he is a Liberal-National-Unionist. We are entitled to an explanation why this is the first Bill of this Parliament about Scotland. It was not even mentioned in the Gracious Speech.

Mr. Willis: Nor was it mentioned in the Tory Party election manifesto.

Mr. Ross: Or in the National-Liberal-Unionist programme. Why have we this Bill at all? Why have we it so quickly? I am sure that the Bill must have been on the stocks for a while. If the need is so urgent, why did the Government wait all those years in the last Parliament during the time the right hon. Gentleman was Secretary of State? Has he been battling with the Treasury and have the Treasury been refusing him these extra pounds? Or have the Treasury been objecting to the kind of hospitality which was given, claiming that it was wrong to take the Home Secretary there to educate him in Colonial affairs?
Is there a secret guarantee behind the Bill that the list of the Lord High Commissioner's guests must be approved by the Treasury? These are important


issues. These questions naturally arise to us when we try to find out why, if the need has been so urgent since 1954, we have had to wait until after the General Election for the introduction of the Bill, as the first Bill about Scotland. Moreover, it was done very quietly. We have had the Gracious Speech. I emphasise that here we are dealing with a representative of the Queen, because the Lord High Commissioner is a representative of the Queen. One would have thought that a matter of such importance, lying so near to the Gracious Speech itself, would have been worthy of mention. Did the Secretary of State hope to slide the Bill through quietly?
Possibly he did not even know about it. Probably this is the work of the Solicitor-General for Scotland. It is wonderful to have such an array of talent here tonight. The other night we were dealing with the important matter of the Secretary of State's refusal to allow a county council to give £1,000 to a colliery disaster fund. On that occasion the Secretary of State was not present. The matter hinged on legal interpretation, but the Solicitor-General for Scotland was not present. Are we to have a word from the Solicitor-General for Scotland tonight? Will he again wax eloquent on the subject of the Church of Scotland? Will he mention feu duty? He ought to be thoroughly ashamed of himself for that episode, and I hope that he will address himself to the subject tonight in order to tell us exactly how he justifies the introduction of the Bill at this time, when obviously there were ample opportunities in past years to introduce it.
Secondly, why has it been introduced without being properly heralded in the Gracious Speech? Thirdly, will he justify to us the figure of £7,500? Fourthly, will he tell us how the Secretary of State decides what is the right amount in any year and what happens to the petty cash, if there is any petty cash? Lastly, will he comment on our view that although we do not object to the hospitality, we feel that it should be much more widely spread in relation to the people attending, either by virtue of their offices as elected representatives of the presbytery or as guests of the Lord High Commissioner.

8.18 p.m.

Mr. Ede: I have two disqualifications for speaking in the debate. First, I am a Privy Councillor and I therefore understand that I ought never to speak in the House at all. Please bear me out, Mr. Speaker, in view of that statement, that I have waited until everyone on my side of the House has spoken who wishes to speak, and I am therefore entitled to intervene now, even if I am a Privy Councillor. Secondly, I am an Englishman.

Mr. Willis: That is not a disqualification.

Mr. Ede: It usually is in Scottish debates. Perhaps my hon. Friend hopes that I shall support him. All I say is that presumably part of this money will be paid by Englishmen.

Mr. Ross: No.

Mr. Ede: Does not my hon. Friend think that occasionally some Englishmen buy whisky and contribute to the whisky tax? I wonder whether more tax is paid south of the Border than north.
I am an English Nonconformist. This whole matter arose because the kings of Scotland wanted an episcopal form of Church government and the Church of Scotland, as reformed, wanted to be Presbyterian. All the early disputes between the Crown and the General Assembly were on that issue and the great Assembly of 1638, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) referred, was engaged mainly in trying to wipe out the efforts of Charles I to give an episcopal form of Church government to Scotland.
It all arose from the presence in Scotland in the latter part of the sixteenth century of a great theologian and scholar named Andrew Melville, who was one of that great group of scholars who proved that even Aristotle could be fallible. He was one of that great group, with Galileo, who brought to an end the period of the Dark Ages in which everyone had to accept that everything that Aristotle had ever said must be true. Although he had a very tempestuous life, he played his part in ensuring that the free inquiring mind should not be inhibited by the assumptions which had prevailed for nineteen hundred years that anything which Aristotle said could not be questioned.
Melville had a conversation with James the Sixth of Scotland, before to our misfortune he became James the First of England. It is recorded that he caught the king by the sleeve, calling him "but God's sillie vassal", and said:
Sir, as divers times before, so now again I must tell you, there are two kings and two kingdoms in Scotland; there is Christ Jesus and His kingdom the Kirk, whose subject King James the Sixth is, and of whose kingdom not a king, nor a head, nor a lord, but a member.
This was the dispute between the Divine right of kings and the Divine right of presbytery. My views on that are best expressed by the words of John Milton when he wrote that great address to the English Parliament, not the British Parliament, Areopagitica, in which he dealt with the efforts of Presbyterians in England to censor books which he, John Milton, had written. He said:
… Bishops and Presbyters are the same to us both name and thing.
That is my attitude towards both today.
I want to go back to the spirit of Andrew Melville and not the spirit which this unfortunate controversy caused in Scotland for a great many years. There was a great minister of Prestonpans, who told James the Sixth when he sat in the General Assembly and took part in the debates:
Yee sit not here as Imperator, but as a Christian".
That was a sound democratic principle to which I adhere.
From 1580 when the General Assembly was inhibited from having contact with the Crown, because the Crown at that time was worn by a Roman Catholic, Mary Queen of Scots, through the centuries there was this constant conflict between the Crown and the Church of Scotland. It all centred round the question whether there should be an episcopal or a presbyterian system of Government. Fortunately for us in this country, we had two Scottish kings in succession after we had five Welsh monarchs, the Tudors. While we will take a lot from the Welsh, even when they have migrated to Scotland, we find it very difficult to accept the Scottish attitude on a great many of these matters.
I think of John Milton's great friend, Oliver Cromwell, and the message that he sent to the Kirk of Scotland:

I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken".
I have never listened to a Scottish debate in the House without wishing that Mr. Speaker should be obliged to admonish both sides with that motto before the debate has proceeded very far.
I wish to read a short extract from an English history book entitled, Some English Dictators, by Milton Waldman:
Like the Tudors James assumed monarchy to be for all intents and purposes synonymous with divinity. Only unlike them, he made the mistake of trying to prove it. Where they, with clairvoyant understanding of the English character, had been content to accept power as a fact, James, exaggeratedly Scottish, insisted on exploring its theory: the system which they had imposed as a pragmatic necessity justified by results he endeavoured, through incessant instruction of the least metaphysically minded race on earth in the philosophy of Divine Right, to attract to it an article of faith grounded upon dialectic.
No Englishman will put up with that. I implore my hon. Friends representing Scottish constituencies when taking part in debates in the House to realise that one of the enduring qualities of the Englishman is that he does not wish to be impressed in these matters by mere dialectic. It was a good thing for both countries that, while in England we used Parliament to resist the Divine right of kings—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will, as soon as may be, bring his argument to the Bill under discussion.

Mr. Ede: I admit that the argument so far has been somewhat lengthy, but it has been directed towards this point, that we are asked now to provide money to perpetuate an office whose origin was in the desire of the Crown in Scotland to prove and to practise the Divine right of kings. It was fortunate for us that when we were quarrelling with the king as a Parliament, in Scotland the Kirk was quarrelling with the king on exactly the same points, and that at battles such as Marston Moor and Naseby in this country we had the support of an army raised by a Scottish Church against a Scottish king.
I hope that in the modern democratic world we shall be able to preserve between the militant section of the Church of Scotland and democracy in this country the happy union that was shown last year in the General Assembly.


But I am not at all certain that the presence of the Lord High Commissioner is any help in bringing that about, for he is a perpetual reminder to the Church of Scotland of that part of its history during which it was engaged in a long and bitter controversy with the Crown.
I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) does not intend to divide the House on this issue tonight. If he had. I would gladly have gone into the Lobby with him, for I object to contributing to a collection to enable a presbyterian Church with which I disagree to carry on with a function that seems to me now to be completely useless.

8.30 p.m.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland (Mr. William Grant): I hope that the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) will pardon me if I do not follow him into some of the realms of old-time controversy with which he has been dealing. Nevertheless, I should say that the office of Lord High Commissioner is an old and honourable one, and I believe that it is the wish of the vast majority of the people of Scotland and of the Church that that office should continue; further more, that it should be carried on in a manner consistent with the dignity that the office has so long held. That, I am afraid, means money; and that is why we are here tonight—

Mr. Rankin: Is dignity always associated with money?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: The hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) referred to the timing of this Bill. I was not sure whether he was complaining that we were too early or too late, but the simple fact is that since 1954 the expenditure has been running at over the £4,000 limit. Despite efforts to economise, it has not been possible to keep it within that limit, and we now have to face the fact that unless there is a major change in the traditional hospitality at Holyrood, and in the necessary expenses that are incurred there, we must increase the Lord High Commissioner's allowance. It is obviously undesirable, from a public point of view, that the office should, in effect, as has happened sometimes, be subsidised from

private sources or, alternatively, that the Lord High Commissioner should have to dip into his own pocket for what is 100 per cent. a public duty.
A number of questions have been asked, and I shall try, as far as I can, to deal with them. The first was why we have chosen £7,500. Well, £10,000 might have been as good a figure—or £7,000—but what we have—

Mr. Ross: Will the Solicitor-General for Scotland answer my question? He has talked about it, but he has not answered it. Why is this the first Scottish business after the new Parliament meets, and why was it not introduced in the last Session of the last Parliament?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: In the last Parliament we were very busy on Scottish Bills. In fact, there was one that we failed to get through because there was not time to do so. We got it through the other place, but there was no time even for that Measure. At the moment, we have to face the fact that next year there will be two Assemblies in Scotland. That means additional expense. Even though the second Assembly will possibly be for only a matter of two or three days it involves opening up Holyrood.
As someone raised the point, I should make it clear that the cost of opening up Holyrood for the Lord High Commissioner to go into residence is not an expenditure that could be charged to Ministry of Works Vote—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] It has to come out of the £4,000, or whatever it may be. It is as the representative of the Queen that the Lord High Commissioner is there, and I understand that it would not be proper to use the Ministry of Works Vote—

Mr. G. M. Thomson: Referring to the timing of the Bill, can the right hon. and learned Gentleman say why, during the General Election, his party said that the first Bill to be brought in would be a local employment Bill and why it did not tell the Scottish people that, in fact, the first Scottish Bill to be brought in would be one to increase the allowance of the Lord High Commissioner to £7,500?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: We said that the first major Bill to be brought in would be one to deal with local employment, and that is, in fact, so. This is not a major Bill. No matter how strongly one may feel about it, or what particular repercussions it may have, it is not a major Bill, and in a manifesto it is not practice to give every minor Bill that may come along in the following Session. As regards timing, it is a question of getting the Bill through in time for arrangements to be made for the quartercentenary Assembly next year. That is the reason for the timing now.

Mr. Willis: If the Government knew since 1954 that the expenses were running at more than £4,000, then they had five years to introduce this Bill.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: They had indeed, but it was hoped that economies might have been possible which would have brought the expenses down. That has not proved possible.

Mr. Rankin: Why not?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: If the hon. Gentleman does not like it, I am sorry, but the reason is perfectly good and extremely valid.
So much for the timing. As to the amount, that, no doubt, is a matter of opinion, but it did seem to us that £7,500 was just about right because it would give a margin of flexibility. It will also be a help next year when we have two Assemblies, but £7,500 is the maximum. It is the Secretary of State who decides each year in consultation with the Treasury how much should be paid out. What happens is that there are discussions each year between the Secretary of State's officials and the Purse Bearer, who acts on behalf of the Lord High Commissioner, as to the level of the expenditure which is to be allowed. In the light of those discussions the amount is fixed for payment to the Lord High Commissioner, and, of course, in recent years, as I say, he has not had enough to cover the total expenditure incurred.

Mr. Willis: For what has the Treasury control?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: It has to be satisfied. It discusses the matter in considerable detail. It goes

through the expenditure of the previous year pretty carefully, and in the light of that fixes the sum for the current year. That is the practice which has been followed, as I say, in recent years. There has never been the possibility of a surplus because the £4,000 has not been enough to cover outgoings.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman give the House an assurance that if the sum is not spent there is a rebate, and that the balance is returned to the Treasury? Is there a rebate afterwards to the Exchequer?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: Oh, yes, because we always decide the following year's grant in the light of what has been spent in the previous year. That is to say, there is always a check on the expenditure. If there is a surplus it will be carried forward to the next year—

Mr. Thomson: Money carried forward?

Mr. Ross: The right hon. and learned Gentleman does not know.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: —but the idea is to get the amount fixed. There is no suggestion and no possibility under the Bill of the Lord High Commissioner himself putting into his pocket for private use any surplus left over at the end of the accounting period.

Mr. Thomson: There is no sort of suggestion that the Lord High Commissioner is personally benefiting from this, but we are voting money and we have a right to scrutinise it. I always understood that it was a principle of a Parliamentary grant of money that the money should be spent within the year and that it should not be carried over from year to year. How is it that in this case money can be carried over to the next year and used for that year's expenditure?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I think it is possible as this comes from the Consolidated Fund. This is not an annual Vote.

Mr. Rankin: Does that mean that they can do anything they like with it?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: No, certainly not. Nor does the Bill


in any place suggest that. It lays down what procedure has to be gone through. The Secretary of State has to approve. He decides the amount, in consultation with the Treasury, and does so after very careful investigations of the level of expenditure and the fairness of the sum which he thinks should be allowed.
Certain points were raised about whether the hospitality was too limited, and about the type of people who are asked. Numbers cannot, of course, be unlimited. For example, about 3,000 people go to the garden party and there is a big reception on the Friday evening to which large numbers of people also go. Speaking from my own experience, the number of different walks of life represented at these occasions at Holy-rood is extremely large. They include people from overseas and people of all races and colours. One cannot, of course, lay down to the Lord High Commissioner that he must ask "X" and not ask "Y", but I believe that the Lord High Commissioner on the whole exercises a wide discretion in asking guests from every walk of life in Scotland and from overseas; and it is only right that he should be reimbursed for the expenditure to which he is put.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) raised a question about Income Tax. If I am not misquoting him, I think he suggested that I should tell him how to get round the Commissioners of Inland Revenue. On the point he made about whether the allowance is taxable. I cannot from my own point of view see any provision under which it can be brought into tax under statute.

Mr. Rankin: The hon. and learned Gentleman has condensed what I said into a rather unkindly statement, but I am certain that he did not mean it to have that effect. All I pointed out was that the Bill states that a certain amount of money shall be given to a person, to an individual, and that money is given with the sanction of Parliament. I do not know whether it is expenses, an allowance, remuneration, or whatever one might like to call it, but it is money given to an individual. The hon. and learned Gentleman may not have been in the House at the time, but I instanced the fact that during the last week an individual from the Inland Revenue has been in the Palace of Westminster advising

Members about their returns. I have been under his scrutiny concerning all I have, even down to my trouser pocket buttons. If they had carried the image of the Queen on them they might have been accounted as part of my income. Everything has to go on paper. Why not in this case? That is all.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: The point is that what is taxable is income, and if a man is reimbursed for expenses he has had to pay out of his pocket in performing his public duty that reimbursement that, as far as I can see, cannot be regarded as income. It is a reimbursement, an allowance for expenses to which he has been actually put, and, broadly, in a case like that, the payment is not subject to tax. Quite apart from that, the matter is one between the Lord High Commissioner and the Commissioners of Inland Revenue. It is not a matter with which I can deal in more detail tonight.

Mr. Ross: We have been told by the Solicitor-General that the Secretary of State scrutinises this very carefully. Is there no Minister in attendance as well? I understand that the Solicitor-General attends the Assembly. I remember being denied the presence in this House of the Solicitor-General. Would he not know about the legal trouble which might arise over tax?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. The House must remember that this is a Second Reading debate and not the Committee stage.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I have already dealt fully with the point made by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock. It is true that I attend at Holy-rood. I do so not as a person in the employ of the Lord High Commissioner but because in the Commission which the Solicitor-General for Scotland receives from the Queen he is instructed to attend the General Assembly on her behalf. That is how I come into it or go out of it, as the case may be. Accordingly I have no jurisdiction to deal with the Income Tax question nor do I deal with the accounts. The Secretary of State for Scotland deals with those and they are dealt with carefully each year.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: Before the right hon. and learned Gentleman leaves accounts, could he give a rough break-up


of the expenditure? What proportion of it is due to opening Holyrood Palace, what proportion goes on the general public occasions, such as the garden party, and what proportion goes on the more private occasions, the luncheons and dinners to the Scottish Establishment?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I cannot split that up as the hon. Gentleman would wish, but, broadly speaking, half the money is spent on entertainment. A considerable part of that goes on the garden party and also on the big reception held on the Friday night. I cannot give the amount spent on opening up Holyrood, but there are staff wages, carriages, motors and other items to be taken into account.
This is a necessary Measure because if the office is to be maintained, as I believe almost every Scotsman would like to have it maintained—

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman give me an assurance that my suggestion, which I thought was constructive, will be taken into consideration? For example, will he before the Committee stage endeavour to sound the Moderator or the leaders of the Church of Scotland to see if they will consider my proposal to take this matter completely out of politics? His work would then be much easier.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: The hon. Gentleman is referring to the suggestion that the Moderator should be the Lord High Commissioner. That would involve considerable constitutional difficulties, and it is a matter which the Church of Scotland would have to decide for itself. If the Government adopted the hon. Gentleman's suggestion we would be doing exactly what he wants us not to do, that is, taking religion into politics. As I say, this is a necessary and desirable Bill, and I commend it to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 38 (Committal of Bills).

LORD HIGH COMMISSIONER (CHURCH OF SCOTLAND) [MONEY]

[Queen's Recommendation signified.]

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees).

[Major Sir WILLIAM ANSTRUTHER-GRAY in the Chair]

Motion made, and Question proposed.
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to increase the allowance payable to Her Majesty's High Commissioner to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, it is expedient to authorise the charge on the Consolidated Fund of any increase attributable to the said Act in the sums charged thereon under the Lord High Commissioner (Church of Scotland) Act, 1948.—[Mr. Maclay.]

8.50 p.m.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Are we not to have an explanation of the Money Resolution from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury? It is discourteous to the House, especially to Scottish Members, that the representative of the Treasury who has come here to move a Money Resolution does so without a word in explanation of what appears to be a rather complicated matter.
Has the hon. Gentleman read it? Does he know what it is about? Before we approve the Motion, will he say exactly where the Treasury comes in? Does it supervise the accounts of the Lord High Commissioner? To what extent does the Treasury look into the expenditure which is incurred, for example, in connection with the Palace of Holyroodhouse? There seems to be a considerable mystery attached to the accounts, and nobody seems to know anything about it.
Will the Financial Secretary tell us why the Ministry of Works does not appear to be responsible for the opening of the Palace? I do not know how far the Minister of Works understands what goes on in Holyroodhouse, but according to the accounts of the Department the Minister of Works is really responsible for the opening of the Palace. When I take visitors to Holyroodhouse I find the Palace open and staffed. Surely we ought to be told why it is


necessary or the Lord High Commissioner to incur the expenditure of opening a public palace. It seems grossly unfair to the Lord High Commissioner.
I should like the Financial Secretary to attempt to unravel the mystery which seems not to be understood by the Solicitor-General for Scotland. Does the unfortunate Lord High Commissioner have to enter this sum of money in his Income Tax return—if so, it is a gross insult to Scotland—and claim the money back by an expenses application? The whole thing seems to me to be carried on in a slipshod manner.
We know that the Treasury exercises a very close scrutiny of education and other expenditure in Scotland. The Secretary of State always gives us to understand that the Treasury is enemy No. 1. Why is it that it is only now that it has been discovered that the Bill is necessary? What does the Money Resolution mean? I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman has some difficulties in his new position, but he ought to have been briefed. He should realise this, for he himself has struggled with the Treasury in the sphere of education. Has the Treasury attempted to reduce expenditure in Scotland on this item? Does it adopt a hostile attitude to this expenditure? Can the hon. Gentleman provide the answer which has not been supplied by the Solicitor-General for Scotland?
We have great sympathy with the Financial Secretary because this is not the last time that he is likely to get criticism from Scottish Members. We very carefully examine everything connected with expenditure, and we now ask him to show that he really has been at grips with the problem. He is the Mover of the Money Resolution, and he must have known that this debate would arise. It seems almost incomprehensible to me that he could come and just nod and expect Scottish Members to agree to the Money Resolution. He should have treated the House more courteously and at least given some explanation of his Money Resolution instead of simply asking us to accept it without explanation. We now have a new Financial Secretary; is he deaf and dumb, or is he a mouse?

Mr. Thomas Fraser: Before we pass the Money Resolution,

will the Secretary of State for Scotland tell us about this business of accounting which I raised, I hope courteously, earlier? The right hon. Gentleman will agree that the Solicitor-General for Scotland was either unaware of the way in which the money was allocated, or was unwilling to inform us; and the latter was hardly likely.
There are bound to be occasions when the Secretary of State allocates money to the Lord High Commissioner for the pursuance of his functions and when, at the end of the Assembly, some money is left. That money should be paid back into the Consolidated Fund and not held over. It cannot be held over by the Lord High Commissioner, because he completes his duties at the end of the Assembly and is succeeded on the following year by someone else. There must be provision for any surplus to be paid back to the Consolidated Fund.
It is not enough to be told that civil servants and the Purse Bearer discuss provision for the coming year in the light of the cost of the previous year, then recommending to the Secretary of State what allowance should be made. I understood from what was said from the Government Front Bench that all the money allocated in the first year was spent. In that case, the civil servants and the Purse Bearer had no difficulty in discovering the cost for that year—unless some extra money was spent and the hat had to be passed round to make up the balance.
We know that £4,000 a year has been allocated since 1954, that it has not been enough and that someone has had to make up the balance. We are now being asked to vote more money and it is only right that hon. Members should ask precisely those questions which the right hon. Gentleman's civil servants put to the Purse Bearer: how was the money spent and for what purpose is the extra money necessary?
The Solicitor-General for Scotland said that people who receive invitations come from all walks of Scottish life. That is very nearly true where garden parties are concerned, but it does not apply to lunches and dinners, as the Secretary of State will no doubt agree. I do not want to indulge in any kind of class bickering, but there are many working-class people in Scotland who are loyal adherents to


the Church of Scotland and who have expressed some concern about this matter.
All we are asking is that before we pass this Money Resolution we should be assured that there is a system of accounting, and that the Secretary of State makes himself responsible for it. He told us that there would be no relaxation in the strict standards of economy. That can be the case only if someone accounts to him. If the right hon. Gentleman belives that it is necessary to be satisfied that strict standards of economy are observed in the expenditure of this money, he must not be surprised if hon. Members are equally concerned that there will be strict standards of economy. Hon. Members can only know that if there is some accountability to Parliament.
9.0 p.m.
We in Parliament attach great importance to the examination of public accounts by a Select Committee of this House. We have been accused by every hon. Member on the Government benches of being the spendthrifts in our society. We have been accused of being the people who spend money without asking questions. The right hon. Gentleman must not be surprised that we are asking him questions and are concerned about how public money is spent.
Before we pass this Money Resolution tonight I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will give us the assurance that he will provide all hon. Members with the appropriate document showing how this money is spent by the Lord High Commissioner, the different purposes for which it is spent, and satisfy us that in future the bills will be met by an official rather than by the Lord High Commissioner. I cannot believe that if the Lord High Commissioner gets a cheque for £7,500, and spends a lot of it in ten days, he controls the expenditure himself. He cannot do that. It must be done by an official. There must be a system of accounting. Why has there not already been an undertaking that the system of accounting will be made available to Members?

Mr. G. M. Thomson: I support what my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) said. The information that I gained during the speech of the Solicitor-General for Scotland was very inade-

quate. We are being asked to vote an annual sum of £7,500. We ought to have had more information about the kind of expenditure that has been incurred during the last few years.
We have been told that during the last few years it has cost more than the money that could be voted for this purpose. Why have we not been given the details? We have been told by the Secretary of State that this has been going on since 1954. Surely a committee consisting perhaps of some former Lord High Commissioners, a representative of the Treasury, and people from the Scottish Office, should have been set up a long time ago to go into the whole business of the cost of hospitality incurred in carrying out the duties of Lord High Commissioner. The committee should then have reported to the House giving the fullest details of the expenditure over the last few years so that we could consider whether the Government are justified in asking for this extra money.
All that we have is a ridiculously inadequate Financial Memorandum on the front of the Bill which does not give any reason why the extra money is required. The Bill has been sprung on us. There has been no public discussion of it. There was no indication in the previous Session that a Measure such as this was contemplated. It was not mentioned in the Gracious Speech, although, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) has pointed out, it is connected with the Crown itself. The Bill has been sprung on us in the first week of the new Parliament and we have not been given the facts on which to base our judgment.
The Secretary of State for Scotland has not behaved properly in this matter. We should have had more information. Let us look at the meagre facts that we have managed to extract across the Table from the Solicitor-General. He told me that roughly half the cost went in opening up Holyrood Palace.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland (Mr. William Grant): I said that half the cost went on entertainment.

Mr. Thomson: Half the cost went in entertaining. This means that at present roughly £2,000 out of £4,000 goes in this


way. The Solicitor-General said that there were two garden parties, to each of which 3,000 people went. Is that correct?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: There was one garden party, which was attended by about 3,000 people, and a large reception on the Friday night, for which I cannot give the figures of attendance, but which always strikes me as being extremely crowded.

Mr. Thomson: Very well. Let us assume that 2,000 people go to that reception. That means that 5,000 people are entertained on those two occasions.
I do not object to entertainment on that scale, because it is given to a reasonably representative gathering. The hard-worked and underpaid parsons can go there with their wives and daughters, as can the leaders of the Kirk. I can only guess what the cost is, but if it is said that it costs roughly 2s. 6d. a head it means that the cost is still well under £1,000. That leaves well over £3,000 still unaccounted for. This sum goes in two ways. A sum is required to open up Holyrood Palace and to provide accommodation for the people living there during the ten days when the Assembly is in session, and the rest of the money goes upon the more private forms of entertainment.
Let us consider what justification there is for spending money on opening up Holyrood Palace. It seems a very cumbersome and expensive method of providing accommodation for the Lord High Commissioner and his guests. I have no experience of Holyrood Palace, although I have been told that it is extremely cold and that it is an expensive place to live in. I do not suggest that it is one of the perquisites of the Lord High Commissioner to have to spend ten days mere. In the old days Prime Ministers used to be summoned to Balmoral, and in Victorian diaries, kept by Gladstone and others, there are some accounts of the Arctic rigours involved in living in Balmoral. When the Home Secretary publishes his diaries we may have an interesting account of his sojourn in Holyrood Palace last summer.
I turn now to the money which is spent upon more private entertaining, on lunches and dinners to a more select group of people. As far as I understand

it, this entertaining is primarily an excuse for what is now called the Establishment—the Scottish Establishment—to enjoy entertainment at the taxpayers' expense. The guests on these private occasions are not representative in the same way as is the general body of guests at the garden parties and receptions. We require a good deal more information about this private entertainment at the taxpayers' expense before we can possibly say that it is justified.
The General Assembly of the Church of Scotland is a great national occasion. This year it played a notable part in the public life of our country, by its historic debate upon the problem of Nyasaland. It is a solemn and earnest occasion, and it is a little incongruous to find it accompanied by the provision of private entertainment to a select group of people, only a small minority of whom can be actively concerned with the general work of the Assembly itself.

Mr. John Rankin: When I raised the issue of taxation on the Second Reading of the Bill, I raised a point which the House now realises is of first-rate importance, because the resulting discussion has revealed the complete incompetence of the Front Bench in dealing with the matter.
The Secretary of State and the learned Solicitor-General show an ignorance of the Bill which they have to conduct through this House that is colossal. Quite honestly, when the Second Reading debate on the Bill began, I did not for one moment imagine that such ignorance could exist amongst Ministers in regard to a Measure which they had to present to this House. When the Solicitor-General rose to reply, he said to me, in dealing with the points I raised, that the issue of taxation did not arise, despite the fact that the Bill says as clearly as words can put it that this is a sum of money which is being paid out to a particular individual.
Now, the Solicitor-General says that it is to reimburse him. Those are the words he used. That means that the Lord High Commissioner incurs the expense, and, having incurred it, he is reimbursed, and, consequently, if that is the actual state of affairs, the question of Income Tax does not arise. He is merely being repaid now for money that he spent earlier on his public duties.
I am not one to grudge a single penny of the money that is spent. I agree that the dignity of the Scottish Church is something that we must uphold, but I still say that I do not think that dignity is always upheld by money and money alone. While I do not quarrel with the amount, I do quarrel with the hopelessly inefficient attitude of the Front Bench of this Government. The money is reimbursed. If the sum is being reimbursed for past expenditure, what is the purpose of the Bill? The Bill has no purpose at all, and it ought not to be before the House, because we are not dealing with last year's expenditure.
We are dealing with money that is expected to be expended in two Assemblies that will take place next year. We are anticipating a sum of money, and hon. Members on both sides in a minute or two are to vote that sum of £7,500 on the recommendation of the responsible Minister from the Treasury. There is no reimbursement whatsoever in that. We are to give a person money, and if we are giving money to an individual, how he uses it is within his own discretion. We do not know what happens to it, because we have no assurance that there is any system that prevails to account for the money.
9.15 p.m.
Quite honestly, I am not well disposed towards this idea of accounting for the money. I would rather see the Lord High Commissioner going ahead with his job, carrying it out within his own discretion, spending the money that he feels is necessary and ought to be spent, and then saying to the Secretary of State for Scotland, "There is what I have spent," and getting the money reimbursed to him, as the Solicitor-General has said. But that is not the procedure which is being adopted, and now we are 10 hear the representative of the Treasury telling us to vote a sum of money to be given to an individual. If that is to happen, the issues which I raised during the Second Reading debate have not been dealt with by the Government Front Bench.

Mr. William Ross: If the Secretary of State would rather speak now, I will gladly allow him to do so. We are in Committee and we can speak as often as we like.
I am sorry that we are not to have the advice of a representative of the Treasury because this is essentially a Treasury matter. We are dealing with the Money Resolution and not with the principle of the Bill. I should like, first, to ask the representative of the Treasury whether this is the new pattern for Money Resolutions. If it is, then on behalf of all back bench Members I wish to thank him. I do not know whether he has read it. He will appreciate that although my hon. Friends have been talking about £7,500 and about an increase of £3,500, there is no such sum mentioned at all.
For the benefit of hon. Members who have come to this House for the first time after the recent General Election, I would say that they must appreciate that when we discuss Bills and think that we have a fine Amendment and put it down on the Order Paper, we sometimes find that it would cost some money to implement the terms of the Amendment. Then we go back to the Money Resolution and find that we are tied by it and cannot argue the case out. We are ruled out of order because what is proposed in the Amendment conflicts with the Money Resolution. But look what this Money Resolution says:
That, for the purposes any Act of the present Session to increase the allowance payable to Her Majesty's High Commissioner to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, it is expedient to authorise the charge on the Consolidated Fund of any increase …
"Any increase." In other words we have now a free hand in the Scottish Standing Committee. I hope I am right in assuming that this matter will go to the Scottish Standing Committee. I am sure that something of such a Scottish nature will be dealt with there rather than on the Floor of the House. It would be fine if we could get some guidance about the intention of the Government on that point.
It means that a free hand will be given to the Scottish Standing Committee to increase this sum, if it wishes, from £7,500 to whatever it likes. I must say that the Treasury is showing a rather strange and unknown quality of generosity in the way in which it is trusting the House. That is something which it has not done before. I remember that on matters relating to crofters and to red deer during our discussions in the last Parliament, when we wanted


to do something useful we were told that we could not because it was outside the Money Resolution. But here we have the most generous Money Resolution that I have ever seen. I wonder whether the Treasury drafted this one or whether it was drafted by the Secretary of State for Scotland. I have a feeling that it was drafted by the Lord Advocate—it may well have been.
Why is it that although a ceiling of £7,500 is fixed in the Bill, the matter is absolutely unlimited? Was it the intention that this should be put to the Scottish Standing Committee and that the matter should be thrown open to the generosity of the Scots to increase the sum to, say, £12,000 or £15,000? I hope I shall receive a reply from the representative of the Treasury because we are now discussing something which is outside the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Scotland. This is a Treasury matter.
There is a chance for Scottish plunder here. So far as I can see, we could vote £1 million. It would be entirely open to the Scottish Standing Committee and to the House, of course, on Report and Third Reading, to put in any sum hon. Members wish. I should like to know if I am right in that assumption and, if I am right, whether this was done deliberately? Was this new-found freedom provided deliberately? Is it the pattern for future Money Resolutions? If that is the case, I am sure the Treasury will earn the gratitude of all back benchers who wish to move Amendments in Committee which will cost money.
We are entitled to an answer in respect of that. I hope the Secretary of State for Scotland is not going to reply, but that someone else will give us the benefit of his wisdom and that, whichever sum is suggested, he will say how he justifies granting it. He can do that only by demonstrating not the principle of the Bill but exactly how he will decide on what sum of money it should be. Is there any suggestion of over-estimation in some cases and, if so, what is to happen to the unspent money?
I hope we are to get an answer from the Treasury. We have had a fruitless evening trying to get information from the Secretary of State for Scotland and

the Solicitor-General for Scotland. The Solicitor-General has already declared his interest in respect of the Bill. I am sorry he did not do that at the start of his speech. I hope we shall now have a fresh mind on this subject to tell us exactly how he is going to justify, by strict rules of accountability, any annual sum paid out, with his concurrence, by the Secretary of State for Scotland. I hope he will tell us if it is by an error of calculation that the Government have not mentioned a sum at all but are leaving the Scottish Standing Committee free to fix a sum. Does that mean that the Treasury is prepared to trust the Scottish Standing Committee to fix any sum? Is there to be any ceiling to the generosity that could be legislated for by the Scottish Standing Committee with the eventual support of the House? I hope the Treasury appreciates that this could be very dangerous.
The Scottish Standing Committee will be very different from that in the last Parliament. In the last Parliament the Conservatives had a majority of hon. Members from Scotland. At the start of the last Parliament they had 36, we had 34 and there was one Liberal. Today we have 38 and there are 31 official Tories. They are very much in the minority now, and the majority of hon. Members representing Scottish seats in Scottish Standing Committee will be those on these benches. If the Scottish Standing Committee votes a very much higher sum, that will be the wish of the majority of Scottish hon. Members. Then the Secretary of State will have the ignominious task of coming to the House and depending on an English majority to overturn the will of the Scots.
Did the right hon. Gentleman have that in mind when he gave this freedom to the Scots to act in this way? There must have been something in the mind of the Treasury when this was suggested. It is being proposed tonight that the Treasury should authorise the charge on the Consolidated Fund of any increase, not just the sum which is at present mentioned in the Bill. That can be raised as much as hon. Members wish and the Treasury will accept it. I am entitled to ask if that was in the mind of the Treasury at the time—whether it was prepared to see this sum, which at present is fixed, raised higher? I hope we shall have the advantage of the advice


of the Treasury in respect of what was its will. So far is I can see, the Secretary of State for Scotland has nothing to do with this Money Resolution. It emanated from the Treasury. It is signed only by the Treasury. I hope that the Treasury will be answerable to the Committee as to exactly why it is in this form.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I am astonished at the revelations which have been made to the Committee. I have been in public life for thirty years, sitting on finance committees of all kinds of local authorities and when we have been asked for simple statements on financial accounts we have usually been able to obtain precise information. Here we have an extraordinary state of affairs. It makes me ask whether these accounts are audited. If they are, surely there ought to be no difficulty in giving the details. We ought to be told what is the precise expenditure.
Local authorities would never dream of passing these accounts without asking for some explanation. I hope that we shall receive an explanation which will clear this matter up, otherwise we shall have to probe it further. How was it discovered that this extra money was needed? Surely at some stage someone applied for a rise. Who was it? Was it the ex-Lord High Commissioner and, if so, what were the reasons?
I should be the last to end the duties of the Lord High Commissioner while having a feeling that we were indebted to a noble Lord for expenditure. We have been told that during past years the £4,000 which we gave was not enough and that the money had to be made up from some mysterious source. I should hate to think that some impoverished duke, marquis or lord has had to dip into his own pocket to pay the bills. I should like to know that the House has fulfilled its honourable obligations. I do not want any ex-Lord High Commissioner to think that the House of Commons is mean and miserable and owes him money.
The Solicitor-General for Scotland was asked how many people were invited to the garden party and how many went to it. That is a question which he should be able to answer without difficulty. I read an account in the Scotsman of this garden party, which said that 8,000 people

attended it. In previous debates we have talked about 5,000 or 6,000. Now we are told by the Solicitor-General that it was only 3,000. If only 3,000 people were admitted to the garden party, that rather destroys the argument in favour of the Bill. There is such a wide discrepancy between 3,000 people and 8,000 people that somebody must have gate-crashed. Can it be that 5,000 people wandered into the garden party and dined and wined at public expense? If so, that is a direct encouragement to everybody in Edinburgh to turn up at the garden party, because apparently no check is being kept on the expenditure.
9.30 p.m.
It is not a question of a small difference, say, between 3,000 and 3,500, for we should not argue about that. The question is whether 5,000 people gate-crashed the garden party at Holyroodhouse and, when this was discovered, we had the Bill. Is that why we have the Bill? We ought to have a clear explanation which will satisfy not merely the politically minded but every chartered accountant in Scotland, otherwise they will say, "How do the Government handle their accounts?"
These mysteries ought to be cleared up, otherwise we shall have to ask questions about them in Committee. I do not want these questions avoided. Will the Secretary of State, the Solicitor-General for Scotland, the Economic Secretary to the Treasury or any other of the functionaries present answer these three specific questions? When did they receive an application for a rise? From whom did it come? Was it from the Lord High Commissioner or somebody else? No local authority would say, "We will give you a rise", unless it had previously had an application for a rise.
The Solicitor-General for Scotland and the Secretary of State have given incomprehensible figures. Surely some figures have been kept during the last three years. How long have people been attending the garden party for nothing and without invitation? The whole business shows a lax attitude to what the Home Secretary described as a most important Bill.
That brings me to the question of entertainment at the garden party. I read in the Scotsman that on one occasion 97 guests were invited to the dinner


at Holyroodhouse. Surely somebody kept an account. Or did people get into the dinner without invitation, too? I suggest that the Secretary of State and the Solicitor-General for Scotland should obtain, for the Committee stage, the audited accounts for the last three years and allow hon. Members to inspect them. Surely they have been audited.
That is what we do in local authorities. When I was first on a town council the accounts were passed round the table for any member to see. Before the county council passes the accounts there is an explanation of the expenditure. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman knows that this is the normal procedure of local authorities. Yet here nobody can give answers; we are told that the Bill is urgently needed, and yet nobody knows exactly what is its financial basis. If the Secretary of State cannot provide the information now, I ask him to send to St. Andrew's House and Holyroodhouse and then to let us have the accounts for the last three years in order that we may understand them. This is a serious matter, because we want to exercise the closest possible scrutiny of the Government's financial transactions.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John Maclay): A number of responsible questions have been asked and I will try to deal with them. First, the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) asked a question about the Money Resolution. If he will read the Money Resolution in conjunction with the Bill he will see exactly what it means. It reads:
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to increase the allowance payable to Her Majesty's High Commissioner to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, it is expedient to authorise the charge on the Consolidated Fund of any increase attributable to the said Act …

Mr. Ross: Mr. Ross rose—

Mr. Maclay: I am sorry. I cannot give way now; I am explaining the position to the Committee.
The only Act to which this is attributable at the moment is the Measure to which we have just given a Second Reading. It will be for the Chair in due course to determine what is possible under the terms of the Money Resolution. The drafting is very clear, as far

as I understand it. It should be read very carefully. I know that the hon. Member for Kilmarnock has read it carefully, but he may have omitted to connect it with the Bill before the House. It is exactly the same as the previous one.

Mr. Ross: I am quite capable of appreciating that. After all, we are debating the Money Resolution and we are asking what it means. Am I right in suggesting that we now have the power in Committee to increase the amount simply because no specific sum of money is mentioned in the Money Resolution?

Mr. Maclay: The hon. Member will discover that the position is the same as under the 1948 Act. When we reach the Committee stage of the Bill we will discover how the Chairman interprets the provisions of the Money Resolution in relation to what is properly payable.

Mr. Ross: It cannot be interpreted in any other way.

Mr. Maclay: That is the hon. Gentleman's view.
I was then asked how the sum was to be fixed each year. My right hon. and learned Friend gave a fairly full explanation, and I will not go over the same ground. There are annual discussions between the Secretary of State, his officers and the Purse Bearer acting on behalf of the Lord High Commissioner. Speaking from my own experience, since I have been Secretary of State I have personally gone through the details of this very carefully indeed in trying to decide what is the proper sum which should be available for the following year.
As hon. Members have pointed out, as I have myself, in recent years it has become clear from the very beginning that the whole sum of £4,000 would be necessary. I do not know the practice of my predecessors, but I assure all hon. Members that it is a matter to which I have paid personal attention every year since I have been Secretary of State. So there is no question, as one hon. Member appeared to be implying, that the Secretary of State was content to leave this for others to do for him. It is a personal responsibility on the Secretary of State and it is one which is carried out with the greatest care.
I have also been asked what happens if there is a surplus. To my knowledge, in recent years there has been only one year when there was a surplus over the amount agreed in advance by the Secretary of State in consultation with the Treasury. That does not necessarily mean the total sum that is potentially available. It is the amount agreed in advance for one year. There was a surplus in only one year. There were exceptional reasons which will be in the minds of most hon. Members. It was 1952. That sum being on the Consolidated Fund, what happened in that case was that the Lord High Commissioner of the day allowed the surplus sum to be carried forward to the next year, accordingly reducing the sum which was necessary to be found in the following year.
The simple answer to the main question of why is this rather interesting form of accounting and providing the money used in this case is that, as I think will be agreed by the whole Committee, in a question of the representative of the Queen to the General Assembly to the Church of Scotland it would not be right or proper to insist on the detailed type of specific accounting which is proper for other matters. That point was argued at some length in the 1948 debate.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Mr. Emrys Hughes rose—

Mr. Maclay: I cannot give way now. I entirely agree with what the sense of the debate in 1948 was. I think that it applies today. It is a different form of providing money and a different form of accounting, I agree, but it has been felt for a great many years that this is the right way to do this and I do not think that the Committee, with any sense of responsibility, would wish to change it.
One other point raised, I am sure with the best of intentions and seriously, was the question of the entertainment at other than the great occasions. On those occasions when I have been present at the small gatherings—because they are small they cannot be as widely representative—I have always been enormously impressed by the remarkably wide range of nationality, geographic origins within Scotland, and the range of trades professions, walks of life, etc. An hon. Member shakes his head, but I can speak

only from my own personal experience. I believe that, quite rightly, the Committee would not expect detailed lists to be submitted by the Lord High Commissioner of those whom he intended to ask, or had asked.
I have attended relatively few of these functions, but I have been most impressed by their effect of bringing together people of all walks of life—at the small gatherings as well as the large—and of thus giving them an opportunity to meet which they otherwise would not have had. I believe that the serious speeches that have been made express exactly what serious-minded hon. Members would want. There is an immense desire, I know, on the part of the Lord High Commissioner that the widest range of contacts should be made through and with the help of the dignity of this high office—

Mr. Emrys Hughes: But can the Secretary of State explain something that he has not yet explained? Are these accounts audited, and are they audited by the Treasury—or by whom?

Mr. Maclay: I have explained that this comes under the Consolidated Fund, and if the hon. Member will pursue his researches into the operations of the Consolidated Fund he will discover that it operates in a quite different way. My belief—indeed, my knowledge, is that the accounts are audited, but not by a Government Department. This is a matter between the Lord High Commissioner and his Purse Bearer. The arrangements they make for the expenditure of the money are made between them, but the whole of the sums involved for any succeeding year to the current year do come before the Secretary of State—

Mr. Emrys Hughes: The right hon. Gentleman has said that the accounts are audited, so they must obviously be audited by someone. They are not audited by a Government Department. If he cannot give an answer at once, will he undertake to send us one? Who audits the accounts, and who pays the auditor?

Mr. Maclay: These are all matters between the Lord High Commissioner and his Purse Bearer. The Lord High Commissioner makes his own decision on how he handles his own affairs but,


by long practice, the Lord High Commissioner, and the Purse Bearer, who is the appointee of the Lord High Commissioner, handle these matters between them.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to increase the allowance payable to Her Majesty's High Commissioner to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, it is expedient to authorise the charge on the Consolidated Fund of any increase attributable to the said Act in the sums charged thereon under the Lord High Commissioner (Church of Scotland) Act, 1948.

Resolution to be reported.

Report to be received Tomorrow.

WAYS AND MEANS

POST OFFICE AND TELEGRAPH (MONEY)

Considered in Committee.

[Major Sir WILLIAM ANSTRUTHER-GRAY in the Chair]

Resolved,

That provision be made—

(a) for authorising the Treasury from time to time to issue out of the Consolidated Fund, for application as appropriations in aid of moneys provided by Parliament for the service of the Post Office, such sums (not exceeding in the whole the sum of one hundred and twenty million pounds) as the Treasury may determine to be appropriate on account of expenses properly chargeable to capital account;
(b) for authorising the Treasury, for the purpose of providing money for sums to be issued out of the Consolidated Fund as aforesaid, or for repaying to that Fund all or any part of the sums so issued, to borrow—

(i) by means of terminable annuities for a term not exceeding twenty years (such annuities to be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament for the service of the Post Office or charged on and paid out of the Consolidated Fund), or
(ii) in any other manner in which they are authorised to raise money under the National Loans Act, 1939 (any securities created and issued for that purpose to be deemed for all purposes to be created and issued under the said Act of 1939), and for requiring sums so borrowed to be paid into the Exchequer;


(c) for the repayment to the Exchequer, out of moneys provided by Parliament for the service of the Post Office, of sums issued pursuant to paragraph (a) of this Resolution (so far as those sums exceed the amount borrowed in the manner mentioned in subparagraph (i) of paragraph (b) of this Resolution), together with interest thereon;
(d) for the issue out of the Consolidated Fund of sums paid into the Exchequer under paragraph (c) of this Resolution and the application of sums so issued in redemption or repayment of debt or, so far as they represent interest, towards meeting such part of the annual charges for the National Debt as represents interest.—[Mr. Bevins.]

Resolution to be reported.

Report to be received Tomorrow; Committee to sit again Tomorrow.

SEA FISH INDUSTRY [MONEY]

Resolution reported,
That, for the purposes of any Act of this Session to increase the aggregate amounts of grants made in pursuance of schemes under sections one and five of the White Fish and Herring Industries Act, 1953, and section three of the White Fish and Herring Industries Act, 1957, and otherwise to amend the provisions as to schemes under those Acts, and to authorise measures for the increase or improvement of marine resources, it is expedient to authorise—

(a) such increases in the sums payable out of moneys provided by Parliament as may result from—

(i) raising to twenty-four million pounds the limit imposed by section four of the White Fish and Herring Industries Act, 1957, upon the aggregate amount of grants which may be made in pursuance of schemes under section five of the White Fish and Herring Industries Act. 1953, and under section three of the said Act of 1957;
(ii) raising to fourteen million pounds the limit imposed by subsection (2) of section one of the said Act of 1953 upon the aggregate amount of grants which may be made towards new vessels and engines pursuant to a scheme or schemes under that section;
(iii) relaxing the restrictions imposed by subsection (2) of section five of the said Act of 1957 on the power to vary or revoke schemes made under that Act or the said Act of 1953;

(b) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any expenses incurred by Ministers in taking or concurring or assisting in the taking of such measures for the increase or improvement of marine resources as may be required for giving effect to any convention or agreement for the time being in force between Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom and the government of any other country.

Resolution agreed to.

ACCUSED PERSONS, NORTH-EAST COAST (ACCOMMODATION)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. E. Wakefield.]

9.45 p.m.

Dame Irene Ward: My first responsibility is to declare an interest. I am a magistrate and I sit on Newcastle Bench, but I have, of course, no personal connection with the Consett Bench and the unfortunate incident in which the boy, Butler, hanged himself while on remand at Durham Gaol. That case is the background for the matter which I wish to raise tonight with my right hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State and the discussions which I want to start with the Home Office, the Ministry of Health and the Treasury.
For the purpose of the record let me make this quite clear. A Question was put in the House about these unfortunate and tragic circumstances, and I asked whether it was true that bail had been applied for by the accused to the appropriate bench, whether bail was refused and whether there had been application in the proper processes of law to a judge in chambers against the refusal to award bail. I was told that application had been made to a judge in chambers und that he had upheld the decision of the bench in this case not to award bail.
I am raising this case because of the lack of facilities on the North-East Coast for enbling magistrates to carry out their duties efficiently and effectively. Of course, if the facilities are not there, as we allege is the case, it affects not only the proper administration of justice and the courts of summary jurisdiction but the police, and, indeed, the security of the public.
I want to say straight away that all the benches on the North-East Coast, and, indeed, stretching to the North Riding of Yorkshire, feel very strongly that it is deplorable that we have no remand centres, because there is nobody connected with the administration of the law, in whatever way, who does not realise that it is inappropriate to have to send young people to Durham Gaol on remand awaiting trial.
Very much earlier this year, before, of course, the General Election, the learned

clerk to the Newcastle Bench raised this matter, and the chairman of the Newcastle Bench and I representing the magistrates, in conjunction with the respective Members of Parliament for Newcastle, at that time one Conservative and three Socialists—because this, of course, is not a party matter at all—met together and decided that we should represent to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary the difficulties in which we found ourselves. Before that, through the Magistrates' Association, a meeting of representatives from all the benches within the area was summoned to confirm that those representations should be made to my right hon. Friend.
In due course, the proposal having been warmly commended by the courts of summary jurisdiction, we made our recommendations and our appeal to the Home Secretary, saying that we all felt it was most inadvisable that we should have to proceed with our magisterial duties unless the proper facilities were provided for us. We heard in due course from my right hon. Friend. As he has said in the House from time to time, and indeed said today, he replied that he fully supported the view that these facilities were needed throughout the country, but he regretted that in the circumstances it was not possible to take steps to provide a remand centre for the North-East Coast and the North Riding of Yorkshire.
This was a great disappointment to us. This is a difficult matter to deal with within the proper procedure of the House. I have to address my strictures to the Home Secretary, but I know perfectly well that it would be more appropriate if I could direct my remarks to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because as we all know that it is essential that these remand centres should be provided, and the Home Secretary accepts that it is necessary, it is lack of finance that has prevented our moving forward.
When this distressing case arose quite recently—and there was very strong comment on the fact that this unfortunate boy had been remanded to Durham Goal—it was very difficult for the magisterial bench, and, indeed, for all magistrates in that region, who felt very strongly about the matter, to explain to the public that it was through no fault of the bench concerned that this boy of 17 had had to be remanded in Durham Gaol. It is


only fair and right, in the interests of the proper administration of justice, that I should take this opportunity of putting to my right hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department our very strong feeling about our having been faced with this deplorable and regrettable decision.
I hope that when he replies to the debate I shall hear that in the circumstances, and in the very difficult conditions in which magistrates on the North-East Coast have to operate, my right hon. Friend has been in touch with the Chancellor of the Exchequer and that we shall receive an assurance that immediate action will be taken to provide these very necessary remand centres.
I want to give one or two illustrations of the difficulties. It is not only the magistrates who find themselves at a very great disadvantage but also the police and the public at large, because if the decisions of magistrates are to be publicly criticised it is very difficult for them to securely protect the interests of the public from some young persons who, possibly through an unfortunate medical background, or for some other reasons, must be remanded until their cases can be thorough dealt with by the appropriate court; and sometimes, of course, there is considerable delay.
I want to draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Dr. D. Johnson) asked me to put a case on record in which two young people at Carlisle were sent to Borstal. There was no place available for them in Borstal and, therefore, they had to spend some considerable time in Durham Gaol, which I am sure my right hon. Friend will agree was most unsuitable.
I was also asked by the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central (Mr. Short) to draw the attention of my right hon. Friend to the case of a boy of 15 who was remanded to Durham Gaol. As I have said, I sit on the Newcastle Bench, and again and again we have been faced with the difficult problem of what we are to do with the accused when we feel that he should be sent to a higher court for trial Then, again, fairly recently there was the case of a young man of 19 whom the police thought was the head of a gang.
I am bound to remind my right hon. Friend that a report was issued recently which was sharply critical of the police. It stated that the police were slow to detect the criminals concerned with various offences. Yet when the police brought an accused before the court, and he was considered to be the leader of a gang and was remanded to Durham Gaol, he was released on the grounds that it was unsuitable to detain a young man of 19 in gaol. We cannot have it both ways. It is no use criticising the police if we do not give them the facilities to help in the detection of crime.
There was also the recent case of a young lad of 15 who had been sent to Wellesley Training School, which is a form of approved school. He was alleged to have committed some robberies and was no longer acceptable to that school. He came up before the court and should have been sent to a proper remand centre but he had to be sent to Durham Gaol. Again, these arrangements came under close and considerable criticism from the learned judge, Mr. Justice Elwes.
So our position on the North-East Coast is one which demands the immediate attention of my right hon. Friend. Although we all believe in the effectiveness of the voluntary service rendered by our courts of summary jurisdiction, where a great deal of admirable work is done, I think that the time will be coming, if my right hon. Friend cannot remedy the position, when magistrates will have to make themselves more vocal in demanding that if they are to be asked to continue to administer justice on the benches in their areas, their needs, their demands and their desires shall be met, because at present we are not receiving a fair deal from my right hon. Friend. I do not want to over-emphasise our own position, nor do I want unduly to cast strictures on my right hon. Friend, because I am well aware that this is all linked with the finance not being available from the Treasury.
Now I turn to another aspect of the same problem. In this connection, I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health. At the same time, I congratulate her, because although she is not going to speak, this is the first occasion since her new appointment that she has


appeared on the Treasury Bench, and I think it is extremely kind of her, under rather unequal circumstances, to come along and listen to what I have to say.
What I am now putting forward raises the question of another bench on the North-East Coast. There was an unfortunate circumstance in connection with two boys of 16 who were mentally unstable. This bench deals with some of my constituents, and so I must declare that interest, also. When the boys came before the local bench it was decided that they ought to go to a mental deficiency school.

It being Ten o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed. That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. E. Wakefield.]

Dame Irene Ward: The bench of magistrates decided that these two unfortunate boys—it was particularly at the request of their parents, which is an important aspect—should go to a school for the mentally deficient. The parents felt that this was in the interests of an elder daughter aged 17. Also, the unfortunate boys had been brought before the bench for causing annoyance to young married women. There were, unfortunately, no suitable places for the boys in our accommodation on the North-East Coast.
I raised the matter with my right hon. Friend, and the Newcastle Regional Hospital Board wrote a most sympathetic letter saying that this was a most distressing and disturbing case but no accommodation was available for the boys. Since then, fortunately, accommodation has been found for one boy, and I think this was because I wrote one of my usual disagreeable letters to my right hon. Friend.
Since the case was brought to my attention, I have heard from members of the bench concerned that when they learnt that their recommendation had not been put into effect they wrote to the Home Secretary pointing out the dangers which the public in the neighbourhood would face if their decision was not quickly put into effect. I feel that I am entitled to say that it is absolutely intolerable that such questions should arise, that benches should

discuss and decide these cases with the greatest care and then facilities should not be available to carry out their instructions.
There is another case which I will mention, because I wish to give the whole picture, and it is important that that should be done. A young man who had previously committed a number of sexual offences was put on probation. Within a short time he had brutally murdered one of my constituents. At his recent trial he was imprisoned for life. I cannot help feeling that if there had been some better way of dealing with the young man my constituent might have been alive today.
I do not want unduly to emphasise all the difficulties, but those of us on the North-East Coast and in the North Riding of Yorkshire who are responsible for the administration of justice expect support from the Home Office and the Ministry of Health, and if the Ministers in charge of those great Departments are unable to bring pressure to bear upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer I think that it is time that Parliament made it very plain indeed that a situation of this kind must not be allowed to continue. That is why I am raising this subject tonight. This is a matter which is of interest to all Members of Parliament, all the police forces in the areas covered by the complaints that I am making, and the general public as a whole.
Unfortunately, when there is a circumstance such as that when the wretched boy Butler hanged himself at Durham Gaol, the Press gives a great deal of publicity to the comments made by a learned judge. Until this afternoon, nobody had defended the magistrate concerned and given all the facts. I should very much welcome it if Mr. Justice Elwes would accompany me, or, having regard to his distinguished position, if he would like me to accompany him, to see the Chancellor of the Exchequer, upon whom we might be able to impress the fact that at the very highest level of our judicial administration our deficiencies and our inability to administer the law properly and humanely are due to lack of facilities. If a distinguished and learned judge would add his voice to mine and to those of the other magistrates for whom I am speaking tonight, perhaps we could make some progress.
Finally, I hope that after the very unfortunate criticisms which were unjustly and unfairly levelled at the magistrate concerned, my right hon. Friend—I have written to the Lord Chancellor about it—will ask the learned judge, Mr. Justice Elwes, whether he will be kind enough to apologise.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady may not criticise a learned judge's pronouncement in the course of his judicial duty.

Dame Irene Ward: I fully realise that, Mr. Speaker. I am not criticising his verdict, but only asking that he should be made aware of all the facts. I am sure that, great man as he is—and we all accept that of all our judges—he would not like someone who cannot defend himself to have to stand under his caustic tongue when the facts have been incorrectly stated. I end my appeal tonight by hoping that the situation which I have depicted will be remedied without delay.

10.8 p.m.

Mr. William Stones: Twice today the attention of the House has been drawn to a tragic occurrence in Durham Prison. I intervene tonight because the boy who so tragically ended his life in Durham Prison resided in my constituency. Immediately the matter was brought to my attention, I communicated with the Home Secretary, drawing his attention to the facts. That was almost two weeks ago. I asked the right hon. Gentleman to make the fullest inquiry into the occurrence and to let me have his observations and comments.
I am awaiting his reply with patience, for if an hon. Member asks for a full inquiry, one expects that he will at least give the Department responsible an opportunity to make the fullest inquiries. Consequently, out of courtesy to the Home Secretary and to the House, I have not raised the matter on the Floor of the House and do not intend to make any specific comments on it tonight.
However, I wish to refer to a newspaper report, a copy of which I have sent to the Home Secretary, in which the Chief Constable of the County of Durham is reported to have said:
Unfortunately, a boy of this age is too old to go to a remand home. If the magis-

trates had to put him in a place of safety, a prison was, I am afraid, the only place that the boy could go.
The hon. Lady the Member for Tyne-mouth (Dame Irene Ward) mentioned that she had raised this matter to defend the magistrate, and that this was the only occasion on which he had been defended. I drew attention to this in my letter to the Home Secretary, and in my statement to the local Press in Consett I stated categorically that I attached no blame to the police or to the magistrate.
I have no desire to repeat the arguments put forward by the hon. Lady except to emphasise the need for more suitable accommodation for young offenders on remand. I hope that the Minister will favourably consider the plea that has been made.
The Gracious Speech states that a Bill will be introduced to provide more effective means of dealing with young offenders and to extend compulsory aftercare to prisoners. When the Bill is brought before the House I will have something more to say about the case that is being considered now.

10.12 p.m.

Mr. Ede: I want to intervene for only two or three minutes to support the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) in the plea that she has made to the Home Secretary to provide the kind of accommodation for which she pleaded on the North-East Coast. Durham Gaol is a prison that is completely out of date in 1959. It has been out of date for a very long time. It is quite useless thinking that we can apply more humane methods of dealing with some of these young people whose lives are not so wrecked at the moment as to be incapable of reformation and improvement if we have to rely on those buildings. I know from my own experience in the past how important it is that new facilities should be provided.
I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman the Joint Under-Secretary of State on again appearing on the Treasury Bench. I know from experience in my constituency that when he was in the Ministry of Education he was sympathetic in dealing with local problems and in helping people who were faced with great difficulties on occasions


because of inadequate buildings which were provided at a time when ideas were very different from what they are today. Because of the tragic case that we have heard today, I hope that the Home Secretary will deal with any opposition that there may be on financial grounds to providing what we so urgently require.
There is one other thing I would like to draw to the attention of the right hon. Gentleman. I understood from a reply that the right hon. Gentleman gave to the hon. Lady this afternoon that the magistrate before whom this youth originally came was not asked to grant bail. Does the right hon. Gentleman know if the lad was represented, or if any person was in court who could have made the appropriate application to the bench on his behalf? In view of the particular circumstances of this case, it is highly desirable that, if possible, a competent person should be there to advise a young person as to what are the possibilities when the bench decides to remand him.

10.15 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for The Home Department (Mr. Dennis Vosper): I am grateful to the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) for his kind remarks. My hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) has raised a matter which, as I know from my study of the papers, she has pursued vigorously in recent years. I know, also, that she is voicing the views of many people on the North-East Coast, and particularly of the magistrates. I say at once that I accept entirely what she said. I do not think that I would dissent from anything that has been said in the debate, and I agree that remand centres are urgently needed on the North-East Coast and elsewhere. This is recognised in the White Paper on Penal Reform, and I hope, following the right hon. Gentleman's words, to be able to assist my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and the Prison Commission in developing this programme.
I am glad to have the support of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health, whom I know my hon. Friend welcomes as another Member of her sex in the Government. I am not entitled to speak in respect of the problem which my hon. Friend raised, except

to say that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary has noted it and has asked me to say that she understands that in the case mentioned twins were concerned, only one of whom has even been before the court. For that one a place has been found, and she is hopeful that a place will be found for the other member of the family.
The case which my hon. Friend raised in the first instance has been brought to mind, as the hon. Member for Consett (Mr. Stones) reminded us, because of a recent tragic event in the North-East, which was the subject of Questions earlier today. I thank the hon. Member for Consett for his very considerate remarks, and I can assure him that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will send him a reply. I should also like to be associated with the remarks of sympathy expressed for the boy's family.
I would not wish to speak at length about this case, but I should once again make clear certain facts. The boy in question came before the magistrates' court on several occasions in July. On none of these occasions did he apply for bail. On all those occasions his father was in court. The boy was not legally represented, and did not ask for legal aid. He later applied to a judge in chambers for bail, and this was refused. The police opposed bail, but my right hon. Friend has no reason to think that they acted unreasonably—a view which was apparently shared by the judge in chambers. It would certainly be improper for my right hon. Friend to seek to instruct magistrates on the way in which they should exercise their discretion to refuse bail.
During the period of remand and committal the boy was in Durham prison, in the absence of a remand centre, but it would be fair to say that the same tragic sequence of events could have occurred had there been a remand centre.
I would say one word on the question of custody, which is a matter of some public concern. The whole question of the length of time spent in custody awaiting trial is one of the subjects being examined by the Inter-Departmental Committee on the business of the criminal courts, which is sitting under the chairmanship of Mr. Justice Streatfield. I believe that reference to this was made in the White Paper on Pena Reform.
One factor which causes concern is that a large number of those committed to custody either on remand or for trial are not subsequently received into prison on conviction. In Durham, however, the number of offenders under the age of 21 who were received again in the prison on conviction in 1958 was as high as 400 out of a total of 567. I make that point because it does not suggest that any excessive use of remands in custody was made during that period.
Nevertheless, we must accept that the problem exists, and that the solution of this case and the other cases mentioned lies in the provision of remand centres.
I should like now to say a general word about their nature, because I think it is a fact that their purpose is not always fully understood. They are sometimes confused in the public mind with remand homes, and the fact that their nature is somewhat misunderstood may account for some of the apparent delay in setting them up. The Criminal Justice Act, 1948, which the right hon. Member for South Shields knows well, empowered the Secretary of State to provide remand centres; that is to say, places for the detention of persons not less than 14 but under 21 years of age who are remanded or committed in custody for trial or sentence.
The function of a remand centre is to provide secure accommodation other than a prison in which to hold young persons on remand who are thought to be unsuitable for bail, and also to afford facilities for the provision of physical examination and general observation of accused young persons. Two further purposes have been added to these. It is now intended that they shall provide similar facilities for adult persons awaiting sentence, and for the observation and classification of convicted prisoners. I make that clear because the purposes envisaged are wider than was the case ten years ago. A remand centre must provide maximum security, and it is not practicable to adapt existing buildings, as can be done in other cases. That is an important point to make. Houses cannot be adapted for the purpose in the space of a few days.
I have mentioned all this because it should be realised that the remand

centre is a new development as complicated as it is expensive. This may surprise hon. Members present, as it certainly surprised me, but the cost of any one centre is likely to be well over £1 million. For example, the first centre, which is to be at Risley in South Lancashire, and I think my hon. Friend knows this, will accommodate over 600 prisoners, and will include a central hospital and separate cell blocks for men, boys, women and girls.
In this remand centre and in all the remand centres to follow, there is to be a very special hospital, and this will be an important feature of the work of remand centres. This first remand centre at Risley in South Lancashire has been the result of considerable work by a development group, and it means that subsequent centres will be much easier to plan.
My hon. Friend has said that the real responsibility was that of the Treasury, and that financial resources were the limiting factor in this case. It is true that the White Paper on Penal Practice in a Changing Society stated that financial restrictions have hitherto prevented the establishment of any remand centres. I realise that to my hon. Friend this explanation, when it is often repeated, is not found very acceptable.

Dame Irene Ward: Hear, hear.

Mr. Vosper: During the last ten years there have been tremendous demands on social capital, and I do not believe that my hon. Friend would argue that the priorities accorded, first, to housing and, secondly, to schools and technical colleges, and more recently to hospitals, have been wrong. It is only with the publication of the White Paper on Penal Reform that this aspect of social reform and social investment has been able to receive the capital allocation which is now its due.
The estimates of the Prison Commission for new buildings for this year, and I hope for next year, have been considerably increased. Therefore, I should like to absolve my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary, who attended the beginning of this debate, from any suggestion that finance is now a limiting factor. It is true that it was when this project was first raised by my hon. Friend, but that has ceased to be so. High priority


is now being given to this work, and although. I suppose the present overcrowding in prisons must be the first consideration of the Prison Commission, it is agreed that the provision of remand centres, and this particular project which is in the mind of my hon. Friend, must receive a very high place in the Prison Commission's programme, and, in fact, it does.
The first centre will be at Risley in South Lancashire. Site clearance is at present being carried out and the building of the centre will soon be ready to start. I do not know whether my hon. Friend knows—if not, I am glad to tell her—that the second centre will be located in the North-East. I know that she will be disappointed because I cannot be more positive than that. But I cannot report more progress because there has been considerable difficulty in finding a suitable site. I shall be glad of any assistance which she or any other right hon. or hon. Member can give in this respect.
In the spring of this year inspections were carried out of all surplus Service establishments and Government property in the area and in the early summer the Durham County Council was asked to suggest alternative sites. Its reply was received last month and is now being examined by the Prison Commissioners. I know from my own very recent experience that, although there is a general demand for provision of this nature, local

opposition is always very strong when a particular site is suggested. This is a real difficulty which now we have to face when looking for a site for this remand centre.
Public opinion which, quite rightly, is indignant about this particular incident may be also indignant about any particular site in Durham or in the North-East being chosen for a remand centre. In this respect I plead for the support of right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House. I cannot, therefore, give my hon. Friend a complete assurance that this centre will start at any particular date or in any particular place. But I can give her, and I repeat this, an assurance that it will receive a high priority, that it is next on the list and that I shall give it my personal attention during the coming months.
As I said at the beginning, there is no dispute in principle about this but hitherto financial priorities have not given it the high place which it now merits. I hope that the physical difficulties which we now face may be overcome and that the hon. Lady will not have to continue her campaign very much longer.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes past Ten o'clock.